



"• '""■■■- 



*** 



itatJtj tsi §onpt$&. 



<&A<y,.]o 






m 



f Wl iy/if *=Jv 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



JUjLnv&tC t/Zvr // /&$, 



V>S 



i * V S ■ . 



• * \ 



\r% 






CRITICAL EXPOSITION 

OF 

BAPTISM; 

EMBKACINO THE 

MOSAIC BAPTISMS; JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMSi JOHN'S 
BAPTISM, AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: 

CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY OF 

AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING, 

AND OF 
INFANT BAPTISM. 



BY LEICESTER A. SAWYER, A. M. 

President of Central College, 0, 



Published by Henry W. Derby & Co., 
CINCINNATI, O. 

AND 

D. Appleton, & Co., 
NEW YORK, 




j'f44 






Entered according to act of Congress, in 1844, by Leicester A. 
Sawyer, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Ohio. 






fed $fc| 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. page. 

Mosaic Baptisms . r » . . 9 

CHAPTER II. 
Jewish Traditionary Baptisms » 27 

CHAPTER III. 
John's Baptism . «... 38 

CHAPTER IV. 
Christian Baptism 47 

CHAPTER V. 
Mode of Christian Baptism— Immersion and Pouring 59 

CHAPTER VI. 
Mode of Christian Baptism — Affusion and Sprinkling 78 

CHAPTER VII. 
Subjects of Christian Baptism 97 

CHAPTER VIII, 
Church-membership of Children 107 

CHAPTER IX. 
Analogy of Christian Baptism to Circumcision 128 

CHAPTER X. 
Perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant 135 

CHAPTER XI. 
Designating the subjects of Christian Baptism by general 
terms ....144 

CHAPTER XII. 
The absence of any exclusion of infants from Christian 
Baptism * 150 



CONTENTS. 



*■ 
CHAPTER XIII. page. 

Provision for the early conversion of children 152 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Testimony of the early Christian Fathers 155 

CHAPTER XV. 
The blessings of God on Infant Baptism 162 

CHAPTER XVI. 
Conclusion in favor of the Baptism of Infants 164 

CHAPTER XVII. 
Duties of the Church to Infant Members 169 

CHAPTER XVIII. 
Miscellaneous topics relating to Baptism 176 



PREFACE 



1. The present work is designed to contain a 
complete and thorough exposition of baptism. 

Many partial expositions of this ordinance are al- 
ready before the public, and some of them of con- 
siderable merit. But none have received that degree 
of favor which is necessary, in order to their becom- 
ing generally read ; and none are generally convin- 
cing. 

Believing that the scripture doctrines respecting 
Christian baptism, can be so expounded as to secure 
for them the general adoption of mankind, and thus 
put an end to rational controversy in regard to them ; 
the author of the following work, has undertaken to 
contribute something towards the attainment of this 
result. How far he has succeeded, remains to be 
determined. He indulges the hope that his effort 
will so far receive the approbation of the great head 
of the church, and be so far in agreement with the 
designs and purposes of God, as to be made useful. 

2. Infant baptism is intimately connected with 
family religion. Most families are so imperfectly in- 
formed in regard to its authority and design, that 
something is imperiously demanded for general cir- 
culation with respect to that branch of the subject. 

The position which baptism occupies, as the sacra- 
mental seal of covenant relations subsisting between 



6 PREFACE. 

God and man, and the unhappy diversities of opin- 
ion, among Christians, in regard to it, are additional 
reasons for the general and thorough investigation of 
the subject, both by the ministry and membership of 
the church of Christ. 

3. Baptism is one of the most interesting branch- 
es of Polemic Theology. 

Polemic Theology is discarded by many. But 
when we consider the apostolic injunction, to contend 
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; 
and the obligation both to observe and maintain the 
institutions of Chris tin their purity, we are constrain- 
ed to be polemical. If the doctrines of Christ met 
with no opposition, Polemical Theology would not 
be necessary. But to cease contending for the faith, 
while that faith is violently assailed, is the part of 
cowardice and treachery ; and is a base abandonment 
of the essential principles of Christianity. 

It becomes us not only to defend the institutions 
of Christ and to prevent their being broken down 
by assailants, but also to support them by sound and 
convincing argument, to such a degree as will carry 
conviction to every unbiassed mind. This has been 
earnestly attempted in the present work. 

4. The scripture doctrines, respecting the mode 
and subjects of Christian baptism, must be settled, 
if settled at all, by argument. The opinions of men, 
unsupported by evidence, are of no weight whatever 
in the legitimate establishment of them. 

Neither can these doctrines be safely determined 
from the English bible, considered independently of 
the inspired original. The English bible is not the 
inspired word of God; and has not, and cannot have 
the authority which belongs to the inspired original. 
The English bible is not a safe guide on subjects im- 



PREFACE. 7 

perfectly understood by the translators. Translators 
cannot give a version of unquestionable authority, 
even when they understand, perfectly, the subject 
treated of. Still less can they do this, where they 
<Jo not perfectly understand the subject. If a scho- 
lar translates according to the best of his knowledge, 
his version will be conformable to that knowledge, 
but will in no case exceed it. 

The ultimate standards of appeal, on all contro- 
verted subjects in Christian theology, are the origi- 
nal scriptures, the only inspired word of God, and 
the only unerring and perfect rule of Christian 
faith. The best translations, possible, are imperfect 
and may mislead us. The opinions of the best and 
most learned men may be erroneous, and are, there- 
fore, not to be implicitly trusted. But God's inspir- 
ed word is entitled to our unhesitating confidence. 
It cannot be wrong. It cannot mislead us, if proper- 
ly interpreted. 

In the present work, the original word of God is 
constantly referred to; and in cases where the com- 
mon version is supposed to be objectionable, other 
translations are adopted and supported by arguments 
capable of being appreciated by all intelligent read- 
ers. 

The leading arguments contained in the following 
work were first published by the author in two pam- 
phlets, one on the Mode and the other on the Sub- 
jects of Baptism, in 1838. In the present work r 
those arguments are more fully expanded, and the 
main conclusions have been strengthened by several 
additional arguments. 



CRITICAL EXPOSITION 

OF 

BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

Origin of Baptism. 

§ 1. The earliest baptisms of which we have any 
particular account, are those instituted by Moses. 
Whether the institution of baptism had its origin in 
the time of Moses, or whether it came down with 
the system of sacrifices from the earlier patriarchs 
and from the commencement of time, we are not 
informed in the scriptures, and cannot decide from 
uninspired testimony. There is a tradition among 
the Jews, that the origin of baptism was previous to 
the time of Moses, and that Moses incorporated it r 
as he did the other religious rites of his time, in the 
Jewish discipline, without originating it. Though 
this is incapable of proof, there is no good reason for 
supposing the contrary. It is, therefore, not improb- 
able, that the institution of baptism is as old as that 
2 



10 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

of sacrifices, and that both had their origin in the 
express appointments of God, and in the time of 
Adam. 



Primitive title of the Mosaic Baptisms. 

§2. The Mosaic baptisms' are described among 
the Mosaic institutions, under the title of purifica- 
tions. The name baptism was not applied to denote 
them in the Old Testament, because the Old Testa- 
ment was written in Hebrew, and baptism is a word 
of Greek derivation. The Greek language did not 
begin to be used by the Israelites till several centu- 
ries after the time of Moses. The books of Moses 
were compiled 1451 years before Christ. The 
Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the 
Scriptures, was not completed till about 285 B. C, 
after a lapse of 1166 years from the time of Moses. 
The translation of the Septuagint was executed by 
different hands, and the different parts of it with dif- 
ferent degrees of fidelity and ability. The Penta- 
teuch was the first part of the Septuagint translated. 
It was required to be translated first, in consequence 
of the prominent position which the reading of it 
occupied in the synagogue worship. The terms 
adopted to denote the different Mosaic rites in the 
translation of the Pentateuch, would naturally be 
adopted, unless found objectionable, by the transla- 
tors of other parts of the sacred volume. 

In the Pentateuch, the Mosaic rites of cleansing 
are denominated purifications, not baptisms. The 
same modes of expression are continued throughout 
the old Testament, and occur occasionally in the 
New. 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 11 

PROOF THAT THE MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS WERE BAP- 
TISMS. 

First argument from the Apocrypha. 

\ 3. In Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25, Greek Siracides, 
31: 30, the word baptize is applied to denote one of 
the principal Mosaic purifications. Literally transla- 
ted, the passage reads thus : u He that is baptized from 
a dead body and toucheth it again, what profit will 
he derive from his washing?" 

Ecclesiasticus is one of the apocryphal books. It 
is one of the finest uninspired Jewish literary pro- 
ductions extant in the Greek language, and has been 
reckoned, by the Church of Rome, as belonging to 
the sacred canon. 

Being baptized from a dead body is the same as 
being purified by baptism from the defilement con- 
tracted by touching a dead body. The baptism re- 
ferred to was, evidently, the Mosaic purification from 
defilement, contracted by touching the dead. The 
passage, therefore, shows, that the Mosaic purifica- 
tion referred to, was a baptism according to the 
usage of the Jews in those times. 



Second argument from the Apocrypha. 

§4. In Judith 12: 7, we are told, that Judith 
abode in the camp of the enemy three days, " and 
went out in the night to the valley of Bethulia and 
baptized herself in the camp at a fountain of water." 
This baptism was connected with prayer, Judith 11 : 
17. "Thy servant is religious, and serveth the God 
of Heaven day and night. Now, therefore, my Lord, 



12 MOSAIC BAPTISMS, 

I will remain with thee, and thy servant will go out 
by night to the valley, and I will pray to God." 

Judith is described as an eminent Jewish saint and 
heroine. Her baptism was a religious rite, which 
does not appear to have been commanded in the 
Mosaic ritual, but belonged to the traditionary obser- 
vances of later times. These traditionary observan- 
ces were analogous to the divinely appointed ones. 
The divinely appointed baptisms were the purifica- 
tion from defilement contracted by touching a dead 
body, and the other analagous purifications. — § 3. 

The baptism of Judith was, undoubtedly, a cere- 
monial purification by means of water; probably, an 
uncommanded ceremony. The mode of its admin- 
istration is not defined, but the circumstances of the 
case clearly show, that it could not have been by im- 
mersion. 

1. It was performed by a woman on herself. 

2. It was performed statedly in the night, and 
every night, in connexion with other religious exer- 
cises. 

3. It was performed at a fountain. 

4. It was performed at a fountain within a camp, 
with a hostile army around her, by whose general 
she was at the time entertained. 

The book of Judith purports to describe transac- 
tions and events which took place during the reign 
of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. It is a reli- 
gious historical novel, of which Judith is the heroine, 
and was, probably, founded on facts, as such novels 
generally are. It constituted a part of Jewish Greek 
literature previous to the time of the apostles, and 
illustrates the manner in which Greek words were 
applied to denote Jewish institutions and usages. 

It shows clearly, by the case of Judith, that cere- 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 13 

monial cleansings, by means of water, were denom- 
inated baptisms, as well as purifications. Judith's 
baptism could have been nothing else than a ceremo- 
nial religious cleansing or purification, and was 
doubtless analagous to those instituted by Moses. 



First argument from the New Testament. 

§ 5. The application of the term baptisms as an 
appropriate title of the Mosaic purifications, is also 
evinced by Hebrews 9: 9, 10. This passage, pro- 
perly translated, reads as follows: "Which [taberna- 
cle] has been a type to the present time, in which 
both oblations and sacrifices are offered, that cannot 
make him who performs the service perfect in res- 
pect to the conscience, being imposed with [absti- 
nence from certain] meats and drinks and various 
baptisms, ordinances pertaining to the body, only till 
the time of reformation." 

The original word which I have translated baptisms 
hi the above passage, is baptismois, and ought, un- 
doubtedly, to be rendered baptisms, not washings, as 
in our common bible. In the above passage, various 
baptisms are associated with oblations, sacrifices and 
distinctions of clean and unclean meats, as rites of 
the Mosaic dispensation. What these baptisms were, 
is not stated in this connexion any further than this 
is indicated by the name baptisms. This word is 
used as a title of certain Mosaic rites, in a manner 
which clearly shows that it was a common and well 
understood name of those rites. 

The Mosaic rites, as enumerated and described in 
the books of Moses, consist of circumcision, sacrifi- 



14 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

ces, abstinence from certain meats and drinks, as 
ceremonially unclean, and purifications. 

In Hebrews 9: 9, 10, these are referred to under 
the titles of sacrifices, abstinence from meats and 
drinks, and baptisms. Which class of the Mosaic 
rites were baptisms? Which would this word most 
naturally denote? Evidently purifications. Can it 
possibly be applied to any other? By no means. 
Sacrifices were not baptisms.. Circumcision was 
not a baptism. The Mosaic baptisms then, must 
have been the Mosaic purifications. 

We are shut up to the necessity, therefore, of in- 
terpreting baptisms in Heb. 9: 10, as a title of the 
Mosaic purifications; and divers or various baptisms 
must be considered as descriptive of the various and 
diversified purifications enjoined by Moses. 



Second argument from the New Testament. 

§6. That the word baptism was applied by the 
Jews to denote purifications, is also evident from 
John 3 : 25, 26. " Then there arose a disputation of 
the disciples T of John, with a Jew, concerning purifi- 
cation ; and they came to John and said to him, Rab- 
bi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom 
thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and 
all come to him." 

The word translated purification in the above, is 
the same that is used in 2 Pet. 1 : 9, which properly 
translated, reads as follows : " But he who is destitute 
of these [virtues] is blind, having a forgetfulness of 
his purification from his former sins." 

The disputation of John's disciples with a Jew, 
related to purification. They refer this matter to 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 15 

John, by stating that Jesus Christ had instituted and 
was administering, what appeared to them, a rival 
baptism to his. The matter in dispute, therefore, 
was the baptism of Christ, or christian baptism. 
The dispute concerning purification, was a dispute 
concerning christian baptism, or, perhaps, concerning 
the relation of Christ's baptism to that of John, and 
the comparative dignity and authority of the two in- 
stitutions. 

If Christ's baptism was a purification, then the 
divinely appointed purifications of the Jews were 
doubtless baptisms. 



Conclusion. 

§7. The argument contained in paragraphs 3, 
4, 5 and 6, does not lead to a mere probability, or 
conjectural conclusion. It places the matter in ques- 
tion, beyond reasonable doubt. It proves that the 
Mosaic purifications were baptisms, and that they 
were so understood and so denominated by the Jews, 
both before the time of Christ, and during the period 
of his public ministry. The conclusion is not forc- 
ed, nor far fetched. It is easy and natural. It is 
inevitable. We cannot, legitimately, get away from 
it if we would. We cannot infer the contrary. We 
cannot conclude that the evidence is indecisive, and 
that it leaves the matter only probable, and in a 
greater or less degree uncertain. This is not the 
fact. It does not leave the matter, in any degree, 
uncertain. The only way to avoid coming to the 
conclusion is, not duly to consider and estimate the 
evidence adduced in the case. 

Men may conclude against any degree of evidence 



16 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 



when they have refused to admit and consider it. 
But evidence admitted and considered, produces its 
effect with certainty and uniformity. Hence, truth 
has this peculiarity, that it bears consideration, and 
becomes clearer the more accurately and thoroughly 
it is investigated and considered. Much that does 
not appear to superficial inquirers, or that shines out 
obscurely and imperfectly to their view, developes 
itself to the patient, studious and considerate, with 
a force of evidence that is irresistible. 

First and superficial impressions are often false. 
They ought never to be trusted. Those views which 
bear the ordeal of impartial and extended investiga- 
tions, and those alone, are entitled to our confidence. 
They are entitled to it equally, whether they occur 
readily or tardily; whether they are our first views, 
and those most naturally suggested by a superficial 
consideration of the subjects to which they relate, or 
whether they are the opposite of what merely super- 
ficial consideration would suggest. 



SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

§8. 1. Baptism of sacred objects. 

2. Baptism of the Levites. 

3. Baptism of the Priests. 

4. Baptism of persons and things, on account of 
ceremonial defilement from touching the dead. 

5. Baptism of recovered lepers. 

6. Baptism of the entire nation of the Israelites, 
previous to the giving of the law. 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 17 

1. Baptism of sacred objects. 

$9. Lev. 16: 14, 19. "And he shall take of the 
blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger 
upon the mercy seat eastward, and before the mercy 
seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his ringer 
seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin 
offering that is for the people, and bring his blood 
within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with 
the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the 
mercy seat and before the mercy seat. And he shall 
make an atonement for the holy place, because of the 
uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of 
their transgressions in all their sins. And so shall 
he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that re- 
maineth among them in the midst of their unclean- 
ness. And he shall go out to the altar that is before 
the Lord and make an atonement for it, and shall 
take of the blood of the bullock and the blood of the 
goat and put it on the horns of the altar round about, 
he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger 
seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the 
uncleanness of the children of Israel." 

This passage records the purification of the mercy 
seat and the altar. It was performed, not with water, 
but with the blood of victims offered in sacrifice, and 
was repeated annually on one of the great annual 
festivals of the Israelites. 

The object of these rites was the removal of cer- 
emonial uncleanness. The effect of them was, to 
cleanse and hallow the objects to which they were 
applied. They therefore agreed with the other puri- 
fications in design and signification, and were purifi- 
cations. 

They were administered by sprinkling blood seven 



18 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

times successively with the finger on the object to be 
purified. 

The Mosaic purifications having been proved to 
have been baptisms, these were baptisms. The sig- 
nificancy of these baptisms depended on the typical 
character of the victims whose blood was used. 
These victims were types of Christ, and their blood 
types of his blood. They were offered to God in 
sacrifice as types of Christ, suffering a violent death 
to make atonement for the sins of the world. Hence 
the application of their blood represented the appli- 
cation of the blood of Christ for the removal of 
human guilt. The application of that blood to 
things, as well as to persons, represented the participa- 
tion of things in the effects and consequences of 
human guilt, and their exemption from the same 
through the atonement. It was, therefore, a symbol 
of legal justification. 



2. Baptism of the Levites. 

§10. Num. 8: 6, 7. "Take the Levites from 
among the children of Israel and cleanse them. 
And thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them: 
Sprinkle water of purification upon them, and let 
them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their 
clothes, and so make themselves clean." 

This purification was a ceremonial cleansing of 
persons in order to qualify them for religious services. 
It was performed by sprinkling with prepared or lus- 
tral water, and was accompanied with other symboli- 
cal ceremonies. Its significancy depended upon the 
mixture of the ashes of a victim offered in sacrifice 
to God in the water made use of. This victim was 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 19 

a type of Christ suffering for the sins of men. The 
application of water prepared with its ashes repre- 
sented the application of the atonement made by 
Christ to the subject of this rite. It was, therefore, a 
symbol of legal justification. 



3. Baptism of the Priests. 

} 11. Ex. 29: 3, 21. "And Aaron and his sons 
thou shalt bring to the door of the tabernacle of the 
congregation, and thou shalt wash them with water. 
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the al- 
tar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle [them] 
upon Aaron and upon his garments, and upon his 
sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him ; 
and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his 
sons and his sons' garments with him." 

The effect of the washing and sprinkling was, that 
Aaron and his sons and their garments, were cleans- 
ed. This cleansing was of course ceremonial, and 
the demand for it did not depend on any want of 
physical cleanliness on the part of the subjects on 
whom it was performed. 

The washing was such as could be performed at 
the tabernacle door. Whether it embraced any thing 
more than the customary washing of the hands, face 
and feet, we are not informed. It is not said that 
the under garments of the persons receiving this 
baptism were changed. The sacred vestments, con- 
sisting of the coat, the robe of the ephocl, the ephod, 
and the breast plate, were put on for the first time 
after the baptismal or ceremonial washing, and before 
the sprinkling with blood from the altar. 



20 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

The purification, however, depended essentially 
upon the sprinkling ; and this had respect to the sa- 
cred vestments of the priests, as well as to their per- 
sons. 

It does not appear that this purification involved 
any immersion; and in the absence of any thing in- 
dicating an immersion, an ordinary washing is all that 
can be legitimately inferred. 



4. Baptism of persons and things, on account of 
ceremonial defilement from touching the dead. 

\\2. Num. 19: 17,20. "For an unclean per- 
son, they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer 
of purification for sin, and running water shall be put 
thereto in a vessel. And a clean person shall take 
hysop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon 
the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- 
sons that were there, and upon him that touched a 
bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave. And the 
clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the 
third day and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh 
day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and 
bathe himself with water, and shall be clean at even- 
ing." 

This purification depended upon a law declaring 
that both persons and things became ceremonially 
unclean by coming in contact with a dead body ; and 
in some cases by proximity without contact. The 
defilement continued seven days; when, by Divinely 
appointed rites, it was removed. If not removed by 
such rites, it continued indefinitely. 

The purification was effected by sprinkling with 
lustral water on the third day, and again on the 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 21 

seventh day. After this, in the case of persons, the 
subject was required to wash himself and his clothes 
in water, whereupon he became clean at evening. 

This purification is referred to directly as a baptism 
in the Apocrypha, in Ecclesiasticus 34: 25. That 
reference has been considered in $3. It is, however, 
but one of the various Mosaic baptisms mentioned 
in Heb. 9: 10; and the other purifications, estab- 
lished on similar principles, and administered in simi- 
lar modes, must be concluded to constitute the 
others. If this purification was one baptism, the 
other analogous purifications were the other bap- 
tisms. 

The defilement from which this baptism was a 
cleansing, was of a legal and symbolical nature. It 
was created by law, and was designed to represent 
sin. Every dead body was a symbol of sin; and 
touching it, or coming into proximity to it, represent- 
ed becoming defiled with sin as with a contagion. 
The rite by which this symbolical contagion was re- 
moved, was a baptism or purification, and was per- 
formed mainly by sprinkling the person or thing with 
lustral water duly prepared for the purpose. In the 
case of persons, washing by the individual was added 
as the conclusion of the whole ceremony. The 
mode of this washing is not explicitly defined. Per- 
haps it was not important. 

The washing is, in this case, as in that of the other 
Mosaic baptisms, enjoined by a Hebrew word which 
corresponds well, in signification, to the English 
word wash. It is applied to washing the face, as in 
the case of Joseph, Gen. 43: 31; to washing the 
hands, as in Ps. 26 : 6 ; and to that of other parts of 
the body. 



22 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

This word, therefore, does not require immersion; 
neither does it prescribe the mode or extent of the 
washing. All that it requires is a washing of the 
individual himself, to be performed by himself. The 
word bathe, made use of to express this washing, in 
our common English version, is to be understood in 
the same sense as when we speak of bathing the 
head with vinegar, not in the sense of going into 
deep water. In this sense, bathing is synonymous 
with affusion ; in the other and more common sense, 
it does not answer to the original, of which it is de- 
signed to be a translation. The water made use of 
in this baptism was running water. 

It appears from the above that the purification from 
defilement, contracted by touching the dead, was a 
highly significant and impressive ordinance, and well 
adapted to make a strong and solemn impression on 
a reflective mind. It was not a merely arbitrary ap- 
pointment, adopted to accomplish no perceptible 
good, but a symbolical rite, representing, in the most 
impressive manner, the defiling and contagious na- 
ture of sin, and the removal of that defilement and 
contagion. It made a strong appeal to the faith of 
the ancient saints, and tended to confirm and increase 
the same. 

Lustra! Water. 

Lustral water was a mixture prepared to be used 
in ceremonial cleansing or purification. It consisted 
of water taken from a stream, impregnated with the 
ashes of a heifer killed and burnt under the direction 
of the priest, with appropriate attending ceremonies. 
The slaughter and burning of the red heifer was a 
kind of sacrifice of that animal for the purpose of 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 23 

obtaining her ashes for the uses here referred to. 

The ashes were considered as possessing the es- 
sential virtues of a sacrificial death. They had the 
power of expiating and removing defilements con- 
sidered as symbols of sin. In the purifications, 
therefore, in which this water was used, there was an 
allusion, not only to the nature of water as an instru- 
ment of purification, but to Christ, as denoted sym- 
bolically by a sacrificial victim, whose ashes were 
made use of in the preparation of the lustral water. 

The scriptural account of the preparation of lus- 
tral water is contained in Num. 19: 1-10. 



5. Baptism of recovered Lepers. 

} 13. Lev. 14 : 7, 9. " And he (the priest) shall 
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the 
leprosy, seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. 
And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes 
and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water 
that he may be clean. After that shall he come into 
the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven 
days. But it shall be on the seventh day that he 
shall shave off all his hair from his head, and his 
beard, and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall 
shave off; and he shall wash his clothes; also, he 
shall wash his flesh in water and he shall be clean." 

The word flesh seems to be here used in the sense 
of body. It was not, said in the law respecting be- 
ing baptized from the dead, that the subject should 
wash his body, but simply that he should wash ; and 
the word " himself" is supplied in the translation to 
distinguish this washing more clearly from that of 
his clothes, mentioned in the context. But in the 



24 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

case of the recovered leper, the subject's body is to 
be washed at the conclusion of the ceremony. 

In this case as in the former, however, sprinkling 
seven times with lustral water on two different occa- 
sions, is an essential part of the ceremony. This 
w T as done once on the first day, and the second time 
on the seventh day. On the seventh day the cleans- 
ing of the subject was completed. 

The cleansing of the recovered leper was not of a 
remedial nature. It was not designed to effect his 
recovery, and had no adaptation to such a purpose. 
It was designed only to remove the ceremonial de- 
filement contracted by his having been a leper. 

The leprosy was an extremely filthy and malig- 
nant disease ; and persons seldom recovered from it. 
In this religious purification, it was made a symbol of 
sin. It was one of the most expressive symbols of 
sin that has ever yet been presented to the human 
mind. The defilement contracted by having the 
leprosy, was a symbol of the defilement or guilt con- 
tracted by being sinners; and the purification from 
this defilement a symbol of the expiation and re- 
moval of guilt. The mode as well as the design of 
this purification, bear a striking analogy to those of 
the purification from defilement contracted by touch- 
ing the dead. If one was a baptism, the other must 
also have been a baptism , for they are both substan- 
tially the same thing. It is a remarkable peculiarity 
of the baptism of recovered lepers as well as of that 
from the dead, that the water made use of was run- 
ning water, and that the ceremony was necessarily 
performed by streams where such water could be ob- 
tained. Lev. 14: 5, 6. 



MOSAIC BAPTISMS, 25 



6. The baptism of the entire nation of the Israel- 
ites previous to the giving of the Law, 

§14. Ex.9: 10, 14. "And the Lord said to 
Moses, go to the people and sanctify them to-day 
and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes." — 
" And Moses went down from the mount to the peo- 
ple, and sanctified the people, and they washed their 
clothes." 

The purification is here expressed by the word 
sanctify. The sanctification of the people was a 
ceremonial one. It could not have been any other. 
A ceremonial sanctification is but another name for 
a ceremonial purification. But if it was a purifica- 
tion, it was a baptism. Because the Mosaic purifica- 
tions have been proved to have been baptisms. 
Besides it agreed with the other Mosaic baptisms in 
representing the removal of guilt under the title of 
defilement. 

The mode of its performance is not described ; 
and as it was not designed to be repeated, a knowl- 
edge of it was not particularly important for the suc- 
cessors of those who were the subjects of it, neither 
is it necessary for us. 



The general nature and design of the Mosaic Bap- 
tisms. 

5 15. From the foregoing investigations, the na- 
ture of the Mosaic baptisms is easily inferred. They 
were all ceremonial purifications, in which physical 
defilement is made a symbol of moral and legal de- 
filement; and the removal of real or supposed physi- 
3 



26 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 

cal defilement a symbol of the removal of moral 
defilement and legal disabilities. 

Mankind are, by nature, sinners ; and, as sueh, both 
defiled and condemned. 

The Mosaic baptisms represented, by striking and 
impressive imagery, the removal both of this defile- 
ment and condemnation. In the cases of the de- 
filement from the dead, and from leprosy, the symbols 
made use of are the most solemn and affecting that 
can well be conceived. Sin is viewed as a death, 
and a leprosy, a contagious death and a contagious 
leprosy. The person affected with this contagion is 
excluded from all communion with God, and with 
his people, until it is removed. Its entire removal 
occupies a period of seven days, requiring two seven 
fold baptisms, by sprinkling, together with appropriate 
sacrifices, and is concluded with a washing of him- 
self by the subject. In the case of the baptism 
from leprosy, the sprinkling was with the blood of a 
victim offered in sacrifice ; and in that of the bap- 
tism from the dead, with lustral water. The sprink- 
lings were performed in the case of the baptism 
from leprosy by the priest; in that of the baptism 
from the dead, by any person not the subject of cere- 
monial defilement. This arrangement, by which any 
clean person was authorized to baptize from the 
dead, was necessary, on account of the frequency of 
those baptisms. To have devolved this duty upon 
the priests exclusively, w T ould have laid a burden 
both upon them and upon the people, which neither 
could have borne. 

It appears, on the whole, that the Mosaic purifica- 
tions were not that unmeaning and insignificant sys- 
tem of arbitrary exactions which many have supposed 
them to be, They were religious rites of great 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 27 

solemnity. They were parts of a system of spiritual 
worship, and were themselves as spiritual as any ex- 
ternal rights can possibly be. Christian baptism and 
the Lord's Supper are not superior to them in this 
respect. These Christian ordinances are no more 
spiritual than the Mosaic purifications were. 



CHAPTER II. 

JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

Specification of the principal traditionary Baptisms 
of the Jews. 

\ 16. The Jewish traditionary baptisms were of 
two kinds. 

1. Baptism of Proselytes or Proselyte Baptism. 

2. Domestic Baptisms. 

Proselyte baptism was administered to converts 
from the heathen, on their admission to the Jewish 
church; in the case of male subjects, after their cir- 
cumcision, and in the case of female subjects with- 
out any previous initiatory rite. It was administered 
also to the children of proselytes equally with cir- 
cumcision, and extended to those of both sexes. 

The domestic baptisms of the Jews comprehend 
those which were performed statedly before meals, 
together with the baptism of things from the market, 
and the occasional baptism of articles of furniture^ 
&c. 



28 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 

Origin of Proselyte Baptism. 

5 17. The origin of Proselyte baptism is involved 
in obscurity. Some have supposed that it did not 
prevail till after the Christian era had commenced. 
The more general and more probable opinion how- 
ever, is, that this institution had its origin soon after 
the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivi- 
ty. The arguments in favor of this opinion are the 
following: 

1. This custom was universal among the Jews a 
few centuries after the commencement of the Chris- 
tian era, accompanied with a tradition of its having 
been handed down from the time immediately after 
the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 
If introduced after the institution of Christian bap- 
tism, it must have been in imitation of that ordi- 
nance, or at least with a knowledge, on the part of 
the Jews, of the existence of that ordinance in the 
Christian church. Either of these suppositions is 
highly improbable. It cannot be supposed that the 
Jews would borrow this ordinance from the Christian 
church; for that church was the object of their con- 
tinual and violent hatred and opposition. It cannot, 
for the same reason, be reasonably supposed that 
they would adopt it from any quarter, while they 
knew of its previous adoption and use in the Chris- 
tian church. Their hatred to the Christian church 
would naturally prevent their making any changes in 
their established rites, by which they would seem to 
conform to Christian usages. It would, therefore, 
have prevented a change of this kind. The sup- 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 29 

position, therefore, that Proselyte baptism was adopt- 
ed by the Jews after the establishment of Christianity, 
is both unsustained by evidence, and is highly im- 
probable. 

2. If Proselyte baptism was introduced among 
the Jews since the commencement of the Christian 
era, there would be likely to be some traces of its 
origin in modern Jewish history and literature ; but 
there is none. This circumstance increases the 
legitimate presumption, that the origin of the Prose- 
lyte baptism was previous to the Christian era. 

3. Epictetus, bom 90, A. D., whose sayings were 
collected and published by his pupil Arrian, denomi- 
nates proselytes to the Jewish faith and worship, 
baptized persons. Arrian Diss. Epict. 2, 9. This 
denomination clearly implies that baptism was to 
proselytes a visible sign of membership in the Jewish 
church, and that being baptized was equivalent 
to being made proselytes. It may refer to prose- 
lytes as the subjects of the numerous Mosaic, and 
of the other traditionary baptisms of the Jews ; but 
it seems most naturally to be accounted for on the 
supposition of the practice of Proselyte baptism at 
that time. On this supposition, the baptized, in 
reference to proselytes, would be a designation per- 
fectly analogous to the circumcised, so often used in 
the scriptures to designate the Israelites. 

4. In the Ethiopic version of the scriptures, sup- 
posed to have been made as early as the third or 
fourth century of the Christian era, the phrase, to 
make one proselyte, Matt. 23: 15, is translated to 
baptize one stranger. Therefore, in the opinion of 
the translator, for the Jews to make one proselyte 
was the same thing as to baptize one stranger or Gen- 
tile. This clearly shows that proselytes were made 



30 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

by baptism, and consequently, that Proselyte baptism 
was in use at that period. 

5. The introduction of John's and Christ's bap- 
tisms, with so little explanation in the New Testa- 
ment, as initiatory rites into the respective societies 
established by John and Christ, is decidedly in favor 
of the opinion, that Proselyte baptism had been pre- 
viously instituted. On the supposition that Proselyte 
baptism had been instituted and handed down from 
the times of the later prophets, the uses of John's 
and Christ's baptisms as initiatory rites into new re- 
ligious communities, would require no explanation. 
They would be in conformity with an established 
and well known usage. On the contrary hypothesis, 
this application of baptism must have been a novelty 
to the Jews, and would evidently require explana- 
tion in a narrative like the gospels, addressed pri- 
marily to persons only acquainted with Jewish prin- 
ciples and usages. But no explanation is given. 
The whole subject is referred to and disposed of by 
the Evangelists as if it needed no explanation, but 
would be understood of course. 

This circumstance is strongly in favor of the opin- 
ion that Proselyte baptism had been previously 
established, perhaps with the sanction of the later 
prophets; and that the baptisms of John and Christ 
were but modifications of the same. 

The disciples of John were proselytes to John's 
faith and practice. The disciples of Christ were 
proselytes to the faith and practice inculcated by 
Christ. To those already acquainted with Proselyte 
baptism, the baptisms of proselytes to John and 
Christ would be easily understood, and would excite 
little surprise. 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 31 

The little explanation, therefore, which was judg- 
ed necessary on these subjects by the Evangelists, 
is an evidence of the previous institution and preva- 
lence of Proselyte baptism among the Jews. 

Objection. 

It has sometimes been objected to the opinion in 
favor of the early origin of Proselyte baptism, that 
this rite is not mentioned by Josephus, when he 
speaks of the circumcision of the Idumeans in the 
time of Hyrcanus. 

His language is, that the Idumeans were allowed 
their choice, either to leave their country or to be 
circumcised and conform to the laws of the Jews. 
The omission of baptism in this expression does not 
imply that it was not required. Circumcision was 
the leading initiatory rite. It was the first rite per- 
formed on the candidate, and was the rite to which 
foreigners would be most likely to object. In pro- 
posing to the Idumeans, therefore, to be circumcised, 
and to conform to the laws of the Jews, Hyrcanus 
proposes to them to submit to all the established 
rites of Judaism. Baptism was comprehended in 
the general requirement to conform to the laws of 
the Jews. 

It was not necessary that it should be explicitly 
mentioned in the proposal of Hyrcanus, or in the 
narrative of Josephus, in order to its being under- 
stood, on the supposition of its general prevalence at 
that time. The neglect of Josephus, therefore, to 
mention baptism in connection with circumcision, in 
the account which he gives of the proposal to the 
Idumeans to become proselytes to Judaism, and of 



32 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

their accession to the same, proves nothing against 
the prevalence of Proselyte baptism at that time. 

The foregoing argument in favor of the early ori- 
gin of Proselyte baptism, is strengthened by the con- 
sideration that Proselyte baptism was a kindred 
institution to the other Jewish baptisms, and seems 
naturally to have grown out of them. In the esti- 
mate of the Jewish law, the entire heathen world 
was in a state of ceremonial defilement. The Jews, 
when defiled, were purified by baptisms. What could 
be more natural than to resort to the same means for 
the cleansing of the defiled Gentiles? 

The principle of the Jewish defilements and puri- 
fications, applied to proselytes, seems to require that 
they should be baptized previous to participating in 
the fellowship of the baptized Jews. Their circum- 
cision removed a local defilement — their baptism re- 
moved a general defilement. If Proselyte baptism 
grew legitimately out of the Mosaic baptisms, it was 
virtually a Divine institution, and of equal authority 
with the other baptisms out of which it grew. How 
the defiled heathen could be received to communion 
in the Jewish church, without baptism, consistently 
with the divinely established principles respecting 
ceremonial defilements and purifications, it is not 
easy to see. 

Order of initiation into ike Jewish Church. 

The order of the initiation of proselytes was as 
follows : 

The candidate was first instructed in the princi- 
ples and usages of Judaism, and gave his assent to 
the same. Their male subjects were circumcised. 
After circumcision, they were baptized, and received 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS, 33 

to full communion in the Jewish church. Females 
were received by baptism only. The children of 
proselytes were circumcised and baptized at the same 
times with their parents. This baptism was never 
repeated either in the case of children or adults. 

Mode of Proselyte Baptism. 

The primitive mode of Proselyte baptism is not 
known. That which has prevailed as far back as the 
history of this rite can be distinctly traced, is by im- 
mersion in the presence of three judges. 

Design of Proselyte Baptism. 

Proselyte baptism, like other Jewish purifications, 
was a symbolical rite, indicative of the removal of 
guilt, and of the cleansing of the soul from sin- 
The Jewish Rabbins have for ages attached to it a 
saving efficacy. They teach that the baptism of 
proselytes is the occasion of their receiving new 
souls, or experiencing a literal change of soul. This 
error is analogous to that of making Christian bap- 
tism the occasion of regeneration, of which it is only 
the symbol and seal. 

Proselyte baptism is supposed to have been intro- 
duced for the following purposes : 

1. To distinguish proselytes, by a religious initia- 
tory rite, from circumcised Gentiles ; such as the Ish- 
maelites. 

2. To serve as an initiatory rite, to seal the intro- 
duction of females to the Jewish church. 

As circumcision was applicable only to males, it 
must have seemed highly desirable to accord to 
woman some analogous seal, by which their interest 



34 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

iii the grace of God, and in the blessings of his 
covenant with men, should be distinctly marked. 

Proselyte baptism answered this purpose. 

3. To remove that general defilement which, ac- 
cording to the principles of the Mosaic laws respect- 
ing ceremonial defilement and cleansing, pertained 
to the whole heathen world. 



DOMESTIC BAPTISMS. 

"518. These are referred to in Mark 7: 3, 4. 
This passage has greatly perplexed commentators 
and translators. Properly translated, it reads as fol- 
lows: 

"For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not, ex- 
cept they wash their hands with the fist closed. 
And [things] from the market they do not eat, unless 
they baptize [them]. And there are many other 
[customs] which they have received to hold, [as] 
baptisms of cups and pitchers and brazen vessels 
and couches." 

The first difficulty in translating this passage is 
with the word translated oft in the common version, 
and fist closed j in the above. The signification oft 
or often, is derived from the vulgate, a latin transla- 
tion, and the one commonly used by the Papal 
church. The Greek word, however, to which this 
corresponds, does not have this signification. Its 
usual and proper signification is that which I have 
given. There is no reason to depart from it, provi- 
did the context will bear this sense. 

Washing the hands with the fist closed, would be 
very different from an ordinary and natural mode of 
washing them, and perhaps may have been adopted 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 35 

for this reason. A religious washing ought to differ 
from an ordinary one, even if performed in the same 
general mode. Besides, this washing, like the other 
ceremonial washings, was not performed for purposes 
of cleanliness, but solely for the purpose of ceremo- 
nial purification. It may have been performed, 
either by dipping the fists in water or by having water 
poured on them. 

The fourth verse admits of being construed in two 
different ways,* in both of which, an ellipsis is to be 
supplied. Translating it without altering the arrange- 
ment or supplying the ellipsis, it reads thus : " And 
from the market, unless they baptize, they eat not." 
Some supply before from, returning, and take baptize 
in its middle or reflexive sense as terminating on the 
subject, so as to make it read thus: "And returning 
from the market, unless they baptize themselves, 
they do not eat." 

Our objection to this rendering is, that it makes 
the whole expression superfluous and contradictory 
of the assertion contained in the verse before it. 

The evangelist had said in the preceding verse, 
that the Jews washed their hands as a ceremonial 
purification before all meals. Such a washing was 
a baptism* for it was a religious purification of the 
same kind as purification from defilement contracted 
by touching the dead. The design of both was to 
denote spiritual cleansing. Both removed ceremo- 
nial defilement. Both were administered, fully or 
in part, by means of water, considered as a medium 
of physical cleansing. 

Purification from defilement, contracted by touch- 
ing the dead, was called, being baptized, in one of 
the aphocryphal books of the Septuagint, making 
that kind of religious rites baptisms. The religious 



36 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 

washing of the hands, according to the tradition of 
Elders, referred to Mark 7: 2,3, and Matt. 15: 2, 
was a rite of that kind, therefore it was a baptism. 

According to the interpretation now under consid- 
eration, the Evangelist tells us, in the first place, that 
the Jews practiced baptism before all their meals, 
and then in the next verse, that they did it before 
some of their meals, that is, after returning from the 
market. 

Not only is the second declaration superfluous, it 
is contradictory of the other. For it implies that 
baptism was not practiced generally before all meals, 
but only on occasions of returning from the market. 

The version which I have adopted, supplies things 
and them, instead of returning; and takes the verb 
baptize in its active sense, a sense which is common 
to the middle form of Greek verbs, and which is al- 
ways given them by intelligent translators, when the 
connection requires it. 

Eating from the market, is a natural expression to 
denote eating things from the market. 

A similar mode of expression is used in Mark 7 : 
28, which is rendered in the common bible ; " eat of 
the children's crumbs." 

1 Cor. 9: 13 and 14, contain similar ellipses, 
where it is said; "Do ye not know, that they who 
minister about holy things, live of the temple ; (that 
is of the things obtained from the temple ;) and they 
who wait on the altar, are partakers with the altar? 
Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who 
preach the gospel, should live of the gospel; that is, 
of the proceeds of the gospel." 

The version which I have adopted, is in perfect 
agreement with the orginal Greek which it repre- 



JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 37 

sents, and suits perfectly the context and the nature 
of the subject treated of. 

Food from the market is in every point of view as 
appropriate a subject of ceremonial defilement and 
cleansing, as dishes and couches ; and those who bap- 
tize the latter, would be compelled, in order to be 
consistent with themselves, to baptize the former. 

On the whole, therefore, I conclude, with Kuinoel 
and other distinguished interpreters, that the first 
part of Mark 7 : 4, relates to the baptism of provi- 
sions obtained from the market, and not to the bap- 
tism of persons returning from it. 

The latter part of Mark 7: 4, mentions explicitly 
the baptism of cups and pitchers, and brazen vessels, 
and couches. The original word in this passage, 
translated washing in the common bible, denotes 
baptisms, not secular washing, and ought to be trans- 
lated accordingly. 

In the entire passage, therefore, we have three 
different Jewish baptisms : 

1. The baptism of persons before meals, perform- 
ed by washing the hands with the fists closed. 

2. The baptism of provisions obtained from the 
market, the mode of which is not described. This 
must have been, however, by sprinkling, as many 
kinds of provisions would not admit of being either 
washed or dipped. 

3. The baptism of cups, pitchers, brazen vessels 
and couches. 

The mode of baptism in respect to those articles 
of furniture,- is not described. Sprinkling is the 
most probable, and is the only one that was practica- 
ble in respect to couches and articles of that kind. 



38 John's baptism. 

CHAPTER III. 

JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
Nature of JohrCs Baptism. 

§ 19. The baptism of John began and ended with 
that reformer. That it was not the same as Christian 
baptism, is proved by Acts 19 : 2-5, where disciples 
who had been baptized with John's baptism, after- 
wards received Christian baptism from the hands of 
the apostles. John's baptism, therefore, is an insti- 
tution by itself, different from the Mosaic baptisms, 
different from the traditional baptisms practiced by 
the Jews of his time, and different from Christian 
baptism. 

Considered as a baptism, it was analagous to the 
other baptisms which have been described. It was, 
like them, a ceremonial purification, and symbol of 
moral cleansing. It differed from them, however, in 
being a rite of initiation into the society of John's 
professed disciples. Hence the expression, John 4 : 
1. "The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made 
and baptized more disciples than John." 

The making and baptizing of disciples by Jesus 
and John are here contrasted. Jesus made disciples 
by converting them to his doctrines, and then he ad- 
mitted them to the society of his professed followers, 
by causing them to receive baptism. John made 
disciples by converting them to his doctrines, and 
then admitted them to the society of his professed 
followers, by a similar rite. 



John's baptism. 3^ 

As Christian baptism was a rite of initiation into 
the Christian church, John's baptism was a rite of in- 
itiation into John's church, or John's religious soci- 
ety. 

John did not found the Christian church, and did 
not, by his baptism, admit persons into it. He did, 
however, found a religious society within the bosom 
of the corrupt Jewish church and admitted persons 
to it by baptism. John's baptism, therefore, differs 
from all other baptisms in being a rite of initiation 
into the religious order or society of which he was 
the founder. 

This society was not destined to be permanent. 
It was soon merged in the Christian church, and its 
initiatory rite discontinued. But for a time it exert- 
ed an important influence in favor of piety and good 
morals, and contributed greatly to prepare the way 
for the successful establishment of Christianity. 
Every true disciple of John, was prepared to become 
an immediate disciple of Christ, as soon as an oppor- 
tunity should offer. 

In being made a rite of initiation into the society 
of John's disciples, his baptism became of a sacra- 
mental character. As a seal of discipleship to John, 
it sealed the obligations of the subjects to perform 
all the duties of disciples. It also sealed their faith 
in the doctrines which John taught and inculcated. 
Hence it is called " the baptism of repentance for 
the remission of sins," Mark 1:4; and hence the ex- 
pression, "I baptize you with water to repentance," 
Matt. 3:11. 

The baptism of repentance for the remission of 
sins, involves the recognition of the doctrine, that re- 
pentance is necessary in order to our obtaining the 
remission of sins. It also implies, that the baptism 



40 John's baptism. 

so denominated, is a seal of our faith in this doctrine. 
Baptizing persons to repentance, involves a recogni- 
tion of the obligation to repent, and an engagement 
on the part of the subjects to discharge this obliga- 
tion. To baptize one to repentance, is to take his 
confessed obligation to repent, and seal it with the 
ordinance of baptism. In the case of adult persons, 
it implies still more. It implies a profession of 
actual repentance on the part of the subjects, and is 
the seal of that profession. 



Subjects of John's Baptism, 

} 20. The subjects of John's baptism are describ- 
ed in the following general terms ; Matt. 3: 5, 5, 
" Then went out to him, Jerusalem and all Judea and 
all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized 
at Jordan by him, confessing their sins." 

These general terms require some limitation. 
The natural limitations are made in the following 
paraphrase : The Jews in Jerusalem and throughout 
all Judea and in all the region about Jordan, gener- 
ally believed in John, became his disciples, adopted 
his principles, and were admitted to the society of 
his professed followers, by baptism. This embraces 
men and women, though neither are distinctly speci- 
fied in the above description. Whether it embraced 
the children of adult converts or not, is a question 
of some considerable interest, and one in repect to 
which, different opinions are entertained. 

Children are no where in the New Testament ex- 
plicitly stated to have been included among the sub- 
jects of John's baptism, nor are they any where 
explicitly stated to have been excluded from this 



JOH^S BAPTISM. 41 

rite. The subject is only adverted to, in the most 
general terms, in the inspired narrative. The only 
specifications are of Pharisees and Sadducees, Matt. 
3: 7, Jesus, 3: 13-15, the multitude, Luke 3: 7, 
the people, 3: 10, the publicans, 3: 12, and the sol- 
diers, 3 : 14. 

Some deny that the children of adult disciples 
were included among the subjects of John's baptism, 
on the following grounds : 

1. That they are not distinctly specified as having 
been the subjects of his baptism, in the inspired nar- 
rative. 

2. That they could not exercise the repentance, 
and faith which he; enjoined. 

Both these premises are true. But the conclusion 
does not legitimately follow. 

John was a divinely appointed herald, calling upon 
all the true servants of God to separate themselves 
from the rest of the nation, by joining his religious 
association. His organization proceeded on the 
principle, that the nation, as such, was fundamentally 
corrupt, and liable to be cast off from the favor of 
God for its corruption. 

He raises the standard of true piety and calls upon 
all to crowd around it, and form a true church in the 
midst of one that had become partially corrupt. He 
does not teach a religion, fundamentally new. He 
is only an expounder of the old religion. He aims 
to bring the people back to the spirit and letter of 
their long established institutions. What Abraham 
and the Patriarchs were, in respect to a due obser- 
vance of religious and moral duties, he aims to make 
them. 

All who respond to his call and obey his injunc- 
tions, he seals by baptism, as belonging to the reform- 
4 



42 John's baptism. 

ed branch of the Jewish church. His society was 
not a new church organized on new principles. It 
was only a reformed branch of the Jewish church. 

Now, in the absence of any explicit and scriptu- 
ral statements on this subject, what is the fair pre- 
sumption in respect to children? According to the 
principles of the Jewish economy, what were the 
rights and privileges of children? Evidently, the 
fair presumption is, that children, included with their 
parents as the subjects of religious purification gen- 
erally, were also included as subjects of this partic- 
ular purification. Having been from the time of 
Abraham, the subjects of the initiatory rite and seal 
of faith and holiness, they must be entitled to share, 
with their parents, this additional seal, unless the 
contrary is explicitly asserted. The contrary is not 
asserted, neither is it implied by any thing that ap- 
pears in the inspired narrative. It follows, therefore, 
that children must have been included with their 
converted parents as subjects of John's baptism, on 
the same principle, in accordance with which, they 
were made the subjects of circumcision, and of the 
other Jewish baptisms. 



Mode of Johrts Baptism. 

$21. The mode of John's baptism is no where 
in the scriptures particularly described. The word 
baptism does not restrict this rite to any particu- 
lar mode, because this word denoted the Mosaic 
purifications, which were administered in different 
modes, but chiefly by sprinkling and affusion, or 
washing. No other terms are applied to describe 
John's baptism, which designate the mode of its per- 



John's baptism. 43 

formance. The common English Bible represents it 
as having been administered in the river Jordan. 
Matt. 3 : 6, and Mark 1 : 5. The preposition which, 
in these passages, is translated in, means either in 
or at. In many situations, it signifies in, in the sense 
of within, and usually has this signification before 
the names of cities, countries, edifices, &c. In 
many situations, also, it has the less definite and 
wider signification of at, on, by, near, &c, as in 
Luke 13 : 4, where the tower in Siloam means the 
tower at or near the fountain of Siloam, not in it. 
The same preposition that expresses, in the above 
passages, the relation of John's baptism to the river 
Jordan, expresses, in Luke 13:4, the relation of a 
tower to the fountain of Siloam. The tower, how- 
ever, was not in the fountain but near it. The bap- 
tism of John may then not have been administered 
in the river Jordan but near it. 

The passages, therefore, where in the common 
English Bible, John's baptism is said to have been 
administered in the river Jordan, are incorrectly 
translated, and afford no proof that his baptism was 
administered in the river; the same word, in the 
original, expressing both the relations of in and at, 
or near. 

It is impossible to determine, fiom the word used 
to express the relation of the river to John's bap- 
tism, whether it was performed in the river or only 
by the river. This word, therefore, proves nothing 
in respect to the mode of his baptism. 

The common English Bible informs us, Matt. 3 : 
16, that, "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
straightway out of the water." 

The preposition here translated "out of," usually 
means from or away from, and is correctly translated 



44 John's baptism. 

as expressing that relation, Matt. 3 : 7, in the sen- 
tence, "Who hath warned you to fieefrom the wrath 
to come?" The question is not "Who hath warned 
you to flee'out of the wrath to come," but " Who 
hath warned you to flee from, or away from, the wrath 
to come." So in numerous other passages. 

This passage merely teaches that Jesus, after his 
baptism, went up from the water, not that he went 
up out of it. It therefore proves nothing in respect 
to the mode of John's baptism, except that in the 
case of Jesus it was administered at the river Jor- 
dan; and, by implication, that it was administered 
with river water. 

It does not appear, however, that all John's bap- 
tisms were administered even at the river Jordan ; 
for we are told, John 3 : 23, that, at a certain time, 
" John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because 
there were many waters there." The expression 
"many waters," is the literal rendering of the origi- 
nal. It means many streams or fountains. 

The reason assigned for John's baptizing in Enon, 
does not indicate any particular mode of baptism. 
It cannot reasonably be supposed that many streams 
were more necessary for one mode of baptism than 
for another. One stream was sufficient for any mode 
of performing this rite. The immense crowds, how- 
ever, who attended on the preaching of John, coming 
in great numbers from the distance of fifty or eighty 
miles, and the same individuals naturally remaining 
for a considerable time, required large accommoda- 
tions. A main article in respect to their supply, was 
water for themselves and for their animals. This, 
in large abundance was indispensably necessary ; and 
to meet this exigency, we have reason to believe 
Enon was chosen, for a time^ as the place of John's 



JOHN'S BAPTIS31. 45 

labors. Its many streams made it a suitable place, 
in consequence, not of any particular mode of bap- 
tism which John practiced, but in consequence of its 
better adaptation to accommodate properly the vast 
multitudes who attended on his ministry. 

John, during the short period of his public minis- 
try, baptized, according to the Evangelists, almost the 
entire Jewish nation, which consisted of several mil- 
lions. Matt. 3:5; Mark 1 : 5. He did this with his 
own hands, not by the ministry of his disciples; for 
it does not appear that his disciples baptized at all. 

This fact indicates a mode of baptism that could 
be administered without great fatigue, or exposure 
of health to injury from long standing in the water. 
It is not the plan of Divine Providence to perform 
miracles for the preservation of men; the object of 
miracles is to serve as grounds of faith. We have 
no intimation that John was preserved from injury, 
and sustained, under the fatigue of a laborious mode 
of administering baptism, by a continual miracle. 
Therefore, we are not authorized to believe that he 
had any miraculous support in this part of his minis- 
try. We are, on the other hand, expressly informed 
that John wrought no miracles. John 10: 41. 

Whatever, therefore, was the mode of his baptism, 
it does not seem possible that it could have been im- 
mersion. No human constitution could have en- 
dured the labor and exposure of immersing the 
millions that appear to have been baptized by him, 
during the short period of his public ministry. 

Authority of Johrts Baptism. 

§ 22. John's baptism was of divine authority. In 
this respect, it stands on a level with the Mosaic bap- 



46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tisms, and far above the traditionary baptisms of the 
Jews. His baptism received the approbation of the 
Saviour, and of the Evangelists. This could not 
have been the case unless it had been of divine au- 
thority. In being of divine authority, it was con- 
formable to a divine law requiring it. That law, 
however, is not recorded in the scriptures. Its ex- 
istence is a matter of inference ; but though its ex- 
istence is a matter of inference, it is not a matter of 
doubt, or of uncertainty. Nothing can be more cer- 
tain. 

John himself refers to the divine authority of his 
baptism, in the expression recorded, John 1 : 33, 
" He that sent me to baptize with water, the same 
said to me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- 
scending and remaining on him, this is he, who bap- 
tizeth with the Holy Ghost." 

We infer from this passage, that God sent John to 
baptize ; consequently, that his baptism was of divine 
authority, an inference in agreement with that be- 
fore made from other premises. 



CHAPTER IV. 

CHRISTIAN BAPTIS 



Historical account of the Origin of Christian 
Baptism. 

\ 23. Christian baptism is the baptism instituted 
by Christ and administered to his disciples. The 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 47 

scriptures contain no record of its primitive institu- 
tion, or of the explanations and instructions of the 
Saviour respecting it, either at the time of its insti- 
tution, or on any subsequent occasion. 

The earliest notices that we have of it, are in the 
Gospel of John, 3: 22, 26, and 4: 1, 2. "After these 
things came Jesus, and his disciples, into the land of 
Judea, and there he abode with them and baptized. 
And they (John's disciples,) came to John and said, 
Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to 
whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, 
and all come to him." " When, therefore, the Lord 
knew that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but 
his disciples,) he left Judea and departed again to 
Gallilee." 

These are all the scriptural instructions we have 
on Christian baptism, till after the resurrection of the 
Saviour. They are all confined to the Gospel of 
John. Matthew and Mark take no notice of Chris- 
tian baptism till they received the commission to 
preach the gospel to every creature, after the resur- 
rection. They then notice it only as making a part 
of that commission, without any explanation, further 
than that persons are to be baptized to the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
Luke takes no notice of it at all. 

The passages referred to in John, show clearly 
that Christian baptism was instituted by Christ at the 
commencement of his ministry, not after its close, 
as is erroneously supposed by many. 

After the crucifixion, Christian baptism is men- 
tioned by Mark and Luke, in the following passages: 
Mark 16 : 16. "And he said to them, go ye into all 
the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 



48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, 
but he that belie veth not, shall be damned." 

Matt. 28: 19, 20. "Go ye, therefore, and make 
disciples of all nations, baptizing them to the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
ever I have commanded you ; and lo I am with you 
always, to the end of the world."" 

These two passages contain similar injunctions 
respecting preaching the gospel, and administering 
Christian baptism to all men. That recorded in 
Mark is supposed to have been delivered on the even- 
ing of the day of the resurrection. John 20 : 19-23, 
and Luke 24 : 36-47, relate to the same occasion. 

That recorded in Matthew was addressed to the 
disciples, by the Saviour, on the occasion of his ap- 
pearing to them, agreeably to previous appointment, 
on a mountain in Gallilee. This appearance occur- 
red on the third Sabbath after the resurrection, and is 
recorded only by Matthew. 

The next notice of Christian baptism is in Acts 
2: 38, 39, 41. "Then Peter said to them, repent 
and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission 
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your chil- 
dren, and to all that are afar off; even as many as 
the Lord our God shall call. Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized; and the same day 
there were added to them about three thousand 
souls." 

In the subsequent parts of the New Testament 
history, and in the Epistles, Christian baptism is fre- 
quently mentioned and alluded to, but in no case 
particularly described. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 49 

It appears, therefore, that the scriptures contain 
no account of the institution of Christian baptism. 
The first notice which we have of it relates to it as 
already instituted, and as being administered by the 
disciples of Christ to large numbers of converts. 
We are expressly informed that Christ did not ad- 
minister his baptism, but referred the administration 
of it entirely to his disciples. John 4: 2. Where 
it is said, expressly, that he baptized, in John 3 : 22, 
it must be interpreted on the principle that, what one 
does by another he does by himself. He baptized 
by employing his disciples to do it for him. 



Nature and design of Christian Baptism. 

§ 24. The nature and design of Christian bap- 
tism are not particularly explained, either in connec- 
tion with the first notices of it, or subsequently. 
They must, therefore, be ascertained by indirect evi- 
dence. 

Had it differed essentially from the other custom- 
ary baptisms of the Jews, some explanation would 
have been necessary. The fact, therefore, that no 
such explanations are given, proves that it does not 
differ essentially from them. 

The older Jewish baptisms were ceremonial puri- 
fications, representing, symbolically, that spiritual 
cleansing which fits us for the enjoyment of God. 
The same appears to have been the case with John's 
baptism. It was a ceremonial cleansing or rite of puri- 
fication, representing holiness as necessary to salva- 
tion. 

The allusions to baptism, and the figurative uses 
made of it in the New Testament, fully sustain this 



50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

view. Hence the expression, to baptize with the 
Holy Ghost. Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16, 
17; John 1: 33. In these passages, John contrasts 
his baptizing with water, with Christ's baptizing with 
the Holy Spirit. 

Christ makes the same contrast, Acts 1 : 5. "For 
John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence ." 
Peter alludes to this declaration on the occasion of 
his being called to account for preaching the gospel 
to Cornelius and his friends. Acts 11: 15, 16 ; "And 
as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 
on us at the beginning. Then I remembered the 
word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed 
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost." The conclusion drawn from 
Peter's argument, of which the above is a part, was, 
that " God also, to the Gentiles, granted repentance 
to life." Acts 11: 18. 

It appears that the declaration of Christ, " ye shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days 
hence," was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when 
the Holy Spirit was largely poured out, and operated 
in the conversion of about three thousand persons. 
These persons were baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
by being converted and purified from sin. 

In the conversion of Cornelius and his friends, 
Peter recognizes the administration of this same 
spiritual baptism to the Gentiles, which had before 
been performed upon the Jews. 

In Acts 22 : 16, Ananias says to Saul, "And now, 
why tarriest thou? Arise, be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
Here baptism is spoken of as a washing away of 



CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3I. 51 

sins, showing that, in the apprehension of Ananias, 
it was a symbol of moral cleansing. 

Titus 3 : 5, contains a similar allusion, where it is 
said of Christ, that " Not by works of righteousness 
which we have done, but according to his mercy, he 
saved us by the washing of regeneration and the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost." 

Also, 1 Pet. 3 : 21. " The antitype to which thing, 
baptism even now saves us, (not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
science towards God,) by the resurrection of Christ" 

Here baptism is referred to as a saving ordinance. 
But the baptism which has this efficacy is said not to 
be the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but that 
internal operation of the Spirit, which produces a 
good conscience. The answer of a good conscience 
is the declaration of Christian faith, which is returned 
from a sanctified mind. Hence external baptism is 
a sign of internal cleansing. This conclusion, which 
has already been deduced from other premises, may 
fairly be deduced from the above passage alone, and 
is a necessary inference from it. 

John 3 : 25, is in agreement with the doctrine 
that Christian baptism is an ordinance of ceremonial 
purification, where the question concerning purifica- 
tion appears to have been a Question concerning the 
relative character of the baptisms of John and Christ. 
This clearly appears, from the verses which follow, 
and from the information given to John on the oc- 
casion, as involving the matter in dispute, that Christ 
was baptizing, and that all men were coming to him 
for baptism. 

In addition to being a symbol of purification, bap- 
tism was a seal of discipleship to Christ. This is 
evident, from the following considerations : 



52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

1 . It was administered to all disciples immediate- 
ly on their becoming such, and was never repeated. 
The obligation to receive it was universal. Those 
who were made disciples during the personal minis- 
try of Christ were baptized during his ministry ; those 
who were made disciples on the day of Pentecost, 
were baptized on the day of Pentecost; and so of 
others. 

2. The baptismal formula indicates that baptism 
is a seal of discipleship. 

This is alluded to in the following passages : 
Matt. 28 : 19. " Baptizing them to the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
Acts 8: 16; "For he (the Holy Ghost,) as yet was 
fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized 
to the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19: 5; 
" When they heard this, they were baptized to the 
name of the Lord Jesus." Rom. 6: 3, 4; "Know 
ye not, that as many of us as were baptized to Christ, 
were baptized to his death? Therefore, we are 
buried with him by baptism to his death." That is, 
by being baptized to his death. 1 Cor. 12: 13; 
" For by one spirit we are all baptized to one body, 
whether Jews or Gentiles; whether bond or free." 
Gal. 3 : 27 ; " For as many of you as have been bap- 
tized to Christ, have put on Christ." 

In the above passages, persons are spoken of as 
being baptized to the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost; and in allusion to the fact that Christ 
was the discriminating object of faith; as being bap- 
tized to him, the other persons of the Trinity not 
being specified. They are also spoken of as being 
baptized to the death of Christ, and to one body or 
community. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 53 

The word which I have translated to, in all the 
above passages, and which, in the common bible, is, 
in some of them, translated ira, and in some of them 
into, is susceptible of several different significations- 
It means to, into, in, for, &c, and is translated by 
these different words, and others, both in the New 
Testament and in other ancient writings. It is often 
used after verbs of motion, to express the direction 
of that motion ; as in John 7 : 8, where it occurs 
twice. "Go ye up to this feast. I go not up yet to 
this feast, for my time is not yet fully come." Matt 
5: 1; "He went up to a mountain." In the latter 
passage, the preposition is incorrectly translated into 
in the common bible. 

Men often go to mountains, but they do not, in or- 
dinary cases, go into them. 

John 8:1. "'Jesus went to the Mount of Olives." 
John 12 : 1 ; " Then Jesus, six days before the pass- 
over, came to Bethany." John 17 : 1 ; " These words 
spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven." 

Before the names of persons, this preposition sig- 
nifies to, towards, for. 

In most of the passages which contain an allusion 
to the baptismal formula, this preposition is used be- 
fore the names of persons; in one of them it is used 
before a word which, in that connection, denotes the 
Christian church. What is the relation, then, which 
it must denote in these connections? Evidently it 
denotes the relation of the person baptized to the 
person to whom he is baptized. If he is baptized to 
the Trinity, the preposition before Trinity denotes 
the relation of the baptized person to the Trinity. 
If he is baptized to the Lord Jesus, it denotes the 
relation of the baptized person to the Lord Jesus. 



54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

If he is baptized to one body, the church, it denotes 
his relation to the church. 

What then is the relation of a baptized person to 
the Trinity? 

Answer. It is the relation of a professed worship- 
per and disciple of the Trinity. 

So the relation of a baptized person to the Lord 
Jesus, is that of a professed worshipper and disciple 
of the Lord Jesus, and his relation to the church is 
that of a church member. 

It appears then, most clearly, that persons are bap- 
tized to Christ, as his worshippers and disciples. 
Baptism, therefore, is manifestly the seal of their dis- 
cipleship, because it is a consecration of them to 
him as his worshippers and disciples, or a seal of such 
consecration. 



Theory that Christian Baptism is a symbolical rep- 
resentation of the death, burial, and resurrection 
of Christ, considered and disproved. 

{25. Some have adopted the theory that Chris- 
tian baptism is a symbolical representation of the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This theory 
is supported by an appeal to Rom. 6 : 3-5, and Col. 
2: 11, 12. These passages, properly translated, 
read as follows : 

" Know ye not that as many of us as have been bap- 
tized to Christ, have been baptized to his death. We 
are, therefore, buried with him by baptism to death, 
that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of 
life. For if we have been planted together in the 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 55 

likeness of his death, we shall be also [planted to- 
gether in the likeness] of his resurrection." 

" In whom, also, ye are circumcised, with a cir- 
cumcision made without hands, by putting off the 
carnal body, by the circumcision of Christ, being 
buried with him by baptism ; by which, also, ye are 
risen with him, through faith, in respect to the power 
of God, who raised him from the dead." 

In the common bible, the preposition which shows 
the relation between baptized and Christ, and bap- 
tized and death, Rom. 6 : 3, is translated into instead 
of to. This translation falls little short of being ab- 
surd. Even on the supposition that baptism was ad- 
ministered by immersion, what propriety would there 
be in calling such an immersion an immersion into 
Christ, or an immersion into his death? On that 
supposition, baptism was an immersion into water, 
but not into Christ or into his death. 

But considering baptism, without respect to the 
mode of its administration, as sealing persons for 
Christ, and thus uniting them to him in church mem- 
bership; and substituting to for into, we have a con- 
sistent sense. According to this hypothesis, being 
baptized to Christ means being made a professed 
disciple of Christ by baptism ; and being baptized to 
the death of Christ, means being made a subject of 
the death of Christ, or being introduced by baptism 
to a- state of death analogous to that which Christ 
suffered. Being baptized to the death of Christ, is 
a figurative expression, introduced as an inference 
from our baptism to Christ. Because Christ has 
died, "and we are baptized to him after his death; 
therefore, baptism introduces us to a state of death* 
By death is here meant deadness to sin. 



56 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

In the expressions baptized to Christ, and baptized 
to the death of Christ, therefore, we have no evi- 
dence of any representation of Christ's death in bap- 
tism; neither do these expressions indicate any 
particular mode of performing this rite to the exclu- 
sion of others. Their significancy depends not on 
the mode, but on the design of baptism, as a rite of 
initiation into the Christian church, and an ordinance 
by which persons are sealed and devoted to Christ. 

Being buried with Christ, by baptism to death, or 
by being baptized to death, means being located with 
Christ; being introduced into the same state and 
condition with him, by being baptized to him, or de- 
voted and sealed by baptism to him. Here, there- 
fore, is no representation of burial by baptism. 

It is inferred that if we are baptized or devoted by 
baptism to Christ, who has suffered death, then we 
must be dead also; that is, dead to sin. And it is 
still further inferred, that, as the dead are usually 
buried, and thus removed entirely from any partici- 
pation in the affairs of this world, Christians, being 
dead as Christ was dead, must also be buried as he 
was buried. Thus, buried with Christ means buried 
as Christ was buried. This, however, is to be taken 
figuratively and spiritually. We are buried from a 
state of sin by being far removed from it. The 
Apostle extends this into an allegory through Rom. 
6 : 5, 6, &c. 

In the whole, however, no allusion is made to 
what baptism represents, but to the relations which 
it establishes, and the condition into which it intro- 
duces us. 

Being buried with Christ by baptism, and being 
risen with him by the same, (mentioned in Col- 
losians,) are similar to the passage now explained. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 

The preposition which I have translated by, is, in 
the common bible, incorrectly translated in. Before 
nouns denoting place or capacity for containing any 
thing, it signifies in, at, or by, as in Luke 11: 1; 
"And it came to pass, that, as he was in a certain 
place praying ;" " in a house," Matt. 8:6; "in the 
temple," Acts 2 : 46 ; " in the synagogues," Matt. 
4:23. 

Before nouns denoting elevated objects, it signifies 
on or upon; as "on a tree," Mark 11: 13; "on a 
mountain," Luke 8: 32; John 4: 20; Heb. 8: 5. 

Before nouns denoting means, instruments, and 
agents, it signifies by or with; as Matt. 3: 11; "I 
indeed baptize you with water to repentance ; but he 
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Matt. 9: 34. " But 
the Pharisees said, he casteth out demons by Beelze- 
bub, the prince of demons." Matt. 12: 24, 26. 
Acts 7: 35; "This Moses, whom they refused, say- 
ing, who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same 
did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the 
hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush." 
Rom. 15: 16; "That the offering of the Gentiles 
might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost." Rom. 16: 16; "Salute one another with a 
holy kiss." Rev. 6:8; "And power was given to 
him over a fourth part of the earth, to kill with the 
sword and with famine, and with pestilence" Rev. 
5:9; "And thou hast redeemed us to God by thy 
blood." 

In the above cases, and in many others, the pre- 
position which, in Col. 2:12, expresses the relation 
of baptism to being buried with Christ, and to being 
risen with him, expresses the relation of the instra- 
5 



58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ment, means, or agent to the action performed. Here,, 
also, it has a similar meaning. Baptism is the in* 
strument or means of our burial and resurrection 
with Christ. 

But in what sense does it bury and raise us up to 
life with Christ? 

Answer. By representing us as dying to sin and 
becoming alive to righteousness ; or, in other words, 
by representing us as cleansed from sin, and made 
spiritually alive with holiness. 

This is the appropriate symbolical significancy of 
all baptisms ; or baptism buries us with Christ, and 
raises us up to life with him, by sealing us his, and 
devoting us sacramentally to him. 

It appears, therefore, from a careful examination of 
Rom. 6: 3-5, and Col. 2: 11, 12, that these pas- 
sages do not assert nor imply any symbolical repre- 
sentation of the death and resurrection of Christ, by 
Christian baptism. 

The administration of baptism in the modes ap- 
propriated to the Mosaic baptisms, that is, by sprink- 
ling and affusion, does not bear the slightest analogy 
to the death, burial, or resurrection of Christ. The 
administration of the same by immersion might rep- 
resent a death, burial, and resurrection, if it had been 
appointed for that purpose. But we are no where 
informed, in the scriptures, that such an appointment 
was made ; neither is there any evidence whatever of 
such an appointment. 

To suppose that there was such an appointment 
on account of allusions, which admit of a satisfactory 
explanation on other grounds, is evidently unauthor- 
ized. The allusions to baptism in Rom. 6 : 3-5, and 
Col. 2: 11, 12, do admit of satisfactory explana- 
tions on other grounds. They, therefore, do not 



MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 59 

prove an appointment of baptism to represent the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Conse- 
quently, there is no proof in favor of the hypothesis, 
that Christian baptism is a symbolical representation 
of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, in 
the bible. That hypothesis must fall. It is not a 
part of religious truth. It is not an appropriate ob- 
ject of religious faith. Faith requires evidence ; to 
believe without evidence, or any further than evi- 
dence leads, is not to exercise legitimate faith but 
criminal credulity. 



CHAPTER V. 

MODE OF CHRISTIAN B AP T I S M. -IM- 
MERSION AND POURING. 

The importance of a correct and convincing exposi- 
tion of the Scriptural mode of Baptism. 

§26. The world, at the present time, is greatly- 
divided in its opinions in respect to the scriptural 
mode of Christian baptism. The Greek church 
practices immersion; the Roman Catholic church, 
sprinkling and affusion; the Nestorians and Arme- 
nians, immersion; most Protestant churches practice 
affusion and sprinkling; and the Baptist churches, 
with their numerous affiliated branches, many of 



60 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

which have departed from the general standard of 
orthodoxy on other religious subjects, practice im- 
mersion. 

This extensive diversity is not maintained in peace. 
The different denominations insist, upon their parti- 
cular modes of baptism as highly important to be 
adopted, to the exclusion of all others. The Baptist 
churches, especially, insist on immersion, not only as 
the scriptural mode of baptism, but as the only mode 
in which this ordinance can be administered. They 
deny that the baptisms of those churches which prac- 
tice affusion and sprinkling, are baptisms, and con- 
sider them as possessing no validity whatever. Hence 
they regard the members of such churches as entire- 
ly unbaptized, and as having renounced, or essential- 
ly corrupted, one of the sacraments of the Christian 
church. On this ground they separate themselves 
from the entire body of Christians who practice af- 
fusion and sprinkling, and have no communion with 
them. They thus create an additional schism in the 
already divided body of Christ, contrary to that 
memorable prayer of the Saviour, that his disciples 
all may be one, as he and the Father are one, in or- 
der that the entire world may be brought to believe 
in his divine character and mission. John 17: 21. 
Churches which God has acknowledged, by bestow- 
ing his spirit upon them, and crowning their organi- 
zations with success and usefulness, their immersion- 
ist brethren do not acknowledge. All schisms are 
injurious. They impair the influence of Christianity 
generally, by placing its professors in opposition to 
each other. They give the impression to unbe- 
lievers, that the principles of the Christian system 
are uncertain; that they are matters of opinion and 
speculation merely, not of knowledge. They raise 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 61 

an insurmountable obstacle to the general triumph of 
Christianity. Christianity cannot triumph till the 
essential unity of the church is re-established. Then 
the powers of earth and hell will not be able to pre- 
vent its triumph, or to protract, for any considerable 
time, the period of its depression. 

If the scriptural mode of Christian baptism can be 
correctly and convincingly expounded, the immer- 
sionist schism may, after a time, be healed. No one 
who believes in the truth of Christianity, and who 
expects its final triumph, can doubt the practicability 
of making such an exposition. The scriptural doc- 
trine on this subject must be capable of being clear- 
ly exhibited, whatever it is. A clear exhibition of 
it must carry conviction to reflecting minds. If it 
does not triumph at once, it must, when it comes to 
be properly presented, gradually prevail. 

Such a presentation must be made. The inter- 
ests of truth, the honor and success of religion, the 
salvation of the world by an undivided church, de- 
lineated on the pages of inspiration, all conspire to 
demand it. The demand must be answered. God's 
Spirit, moving mysteriously on the minds of his peo- 
ple, will impel them to the work, till the truth shall 
be shown; and till it shall be so shown as to pre- 
vail. 

The principal modes of Christian baptism are, 
immersion, pouring, and affusion and sprinkling. 
Affusion and sprinkling constitute, essentially, but 
one mode of baptism, and are used together, or one 
or the other is adopted indifferently by those who 
adopt these rites. 



62 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

* ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF IMMERSION. 

Specification of the principal Arguments. 

{27. 1. That the ordinary meaning of the word 
baptize, in the classic Greek writers, is to immerse 
or plunge in a liquid, generally in water. 

2. That John's baptism was administered in the 
river Jordan. 

3. That, in being baptized, persons went into the 
water, and came out of the water. 

4. That baptism is a symbolical representation of 
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 

5. That immersion prevailed at an early period 
after the age of the apostles, and still prevails in the 
Greek church, and in other branches of the professed 
church of Christ in the East, which are the lineal 
descendants of the apostolic churches. 

These five arguments are the foundation and sup- 
port of the doctrine of immersion, as the scriptural 
mode of baptism. They are the premises of the im- 
mersionist conclusion. The conclusion drawn from 
them is, that baptism ought to be administered by 
immersion. Two things are always to be considered 
in order to determine the conclusiveness or incon- 
clusiveness of reasoning. 

1. The premises. The first thing to be consider- 
ed in deciding on the validity of an argument, is, 
whether the premises are true. If the premises are 
not true, they can of course prove nothing. 

2. The conclusion drawn from the premises. If 
the premises are found not to be true, further in- 
quiry is unnecessary. But if they are found to be 
feme, the" next thing to be determined is, whether the 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 63 

conclusion is a legitimate and necessary deduction 
from the premises, or from any one of them. If it 
is not, the argument is imperfect, and the conclusion 
false or uncertain. Every conclusion is uncertain, 
and should be presumed to be false, till true pre- 
mises are found, from which it can be legitimately 
inferred. 

The doctrine of immersion is inferred from five 
independent premises. If it is a legitimate and 
necessary inference from any one of them, and that 
premise is found to be true, then this doctrine must 
be admitted to be true. Still more must it be ad- 
mitted to be true, if two or more of the above pre- 
mises are found to be true, and at the same time to 
render the conclusion in favor of immersion legiti- 
mate and necessary. 



First argument in favor of Immersion. 

} 28. The ordinary meaning of the word baptize, 
in the classic Greek writers, is to immerse ; there- 
fore, this word means to immerse, in the scriptures; 
and being applied in this sense to describe baptism, 
that rite must originally have been administered by 
immersion, and ought to be so administered now. 

The definition of baptize, as this word is used in 
the classic Greek writers, is given by Donnegan, a 
popular Greek lexicographer, as follows: "To im- 
merse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge; to soak 
thoroughly ; to saturate ; hence to drench with wine ; 
metaphorically, to confound "totally; to dip in a ves- 
sel and draw." 

These definitions are correct, so far as classic 
Greek usage is concerned; and the meaning of the 



64 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

word in the New Testament, ought to be presumed 
to be in agreement with classic usage, unless evi- 
dence exists of a different usage among the Jewish 
Greek writers. If evidence exists of a different 
usage among the Jews who used the Greek language, 
that usage ought to be followed in the interpretation 
of this word in the New Testament, in preference to 
classic Greek usage. 

It has already been shown (J 3-7,) that a different 
usage did exist among the Jews. The Mosaic puri- 
fications are denominated baptisms. These were 
not immersions, but sprinklings and affusions, or 
washings. The modes of these baptisms were vari- 
ous. Hence they are called various baptisms. Heb. 
9: 10. 

Their title baptisms, therefore, did not depend up- 
on any particular mode, otherwise the Mosaic puri- 
fications could not have been various baptisms; for 
they differed considerably from each other in respect 
to modes of administration. Yet they are referred 
to in Heb. 9: 10, as different or various baptisms. 
It appears, therefore, that the applications of water 
in different modes, such as sprinkling and affusion, 
or washing, are baptisms; and a Jewish usage is es- 
tablished in respect to the words baptize and baptism, 
entirely different from that of the classic Greek 
writers, in favor of sprinkling and affusion instead of 
immersion. 

This usage is a legitimate rule of interpretation 
for the words baptize and baptism, in all cases where 
their meaning would otherwise be determined, in 
conformity with classic Greek usage. 

The first argument, therefore, for immersion, as 
the scriptural mode of Christian baptism, is incon- 
clusive. It does not prove the position which it is 



EVOIERSION AND POURING. 65 

adduced to prove; neither does it, in the real cir- 
cumstances of the case, create any presumption in 
favor of that position. 

The established Jewish usage, in favor of a differ- 
ent signification of baptize, and baptism from that 
which is common in the classic Greek writers, super- 
cedes entirely the other and more remote rule of 
classic usage, and is itself the true rule, according to 
which these words ought to be interpreted in the 
]\ew Testament. 



Second argument in favor of Immersion. 

§29. John's baptism was administered, princi- 
pally, in the river Jordan. That, being administered 
in the river, it was probably administered by immer- 
sion, because a river would not have been necessary 
to sprinkle or wash from. 

All the force which this argument can have, is to 
create a probability or presumption in favor of im- 
mersion; and this force may be counterbalanced by 
opposing evidence of any decisive kind. 

The inspired record has already been shown (5 21) 
to be indefinite, and not to declare with certainty, 
whether John baptized at the Jordan, or in the Jor- 
dan. If he only baptized at the Jordan, it may have 
been at a greater or less distance from the river, and 
still have been at the Jordan, in the common accepta- 
tion of that phrase. 

But if he actually baptized in the Jordan, as ap- 
pears to have been the case in the baptism of Christ, 
which is more circumstantially described than his 
other baptisms, this does not prove that he baptized 
by immersion. 



66 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Some of the Mosaic baptisms were required to be 
administered with running water. John may have 
made use of the same ; and if he did, this is a rea- 
son why he should have baptized at the Jordan. 
Another reason for his holding his meetings near 
that river, may have been to accommodate the vast 
multitudes who attended on his ministry, with an am- 
ple supply of water for themselves and their ani- 
mals. 

These reasons are sufficient to account for John's 
having preached and baptized at the Jordan, and in 
other places where there were many streams, whether 
the mode of his baptism was by immersion, or by af- 
fusion and sprinkling. It does not, therefore, prove 
immersion. In order to prove immersion, it ought 
to be unaccountable on any other hypothesis. But 
it is not unaccountable on the hypothesis of affusion 
and sprinkling. 

Besides, even if it did prove immersion in the 
case of John's baptism, it would prove nothing in 
respect to Christian baptism. For it does not ap- 
pear that Christian baptism was administered in the 
river Jordan, or in any other streams. The Mosaic 
baptisms were administered in different modes; and 
John's baptism, for aught that appears, may have been 
administered in one mode and Chrisfs in another. 

This argument, therefore, like the former, proves 
nothing. 



Third argument in favor of Immersion. 

§30. In being baptized, persons went into the 
water and came out of the water. This was entirely 
unnecessary for washing and sprinkling, unless the 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 67 

washing was general; pertaining to the whole body. 
It therefore proves immersion. 

The premise assumed in this argument requires 
proof. The passages (Matt. 3: 16, and Mark 1: 
10,) generally relied on by immersionists, in proof 
of it, have been shown (521,) to be indefinite, and 
not to teach with certainty any more than that, in 
the administration of John's baptism, the administra- 
tor and the subject both went to and from the water. 
The preposition, unfortunately translated out of in 
these passages, is very seldom, if ever, used in the 
sense of out of; from and away from being its ap- 
propriate meaning. 

Acts 8 : 38, 39, ought also to be translated in con- 
formity with Matt. 3 : 16, and Mark 1 : 10. Properly 
translated, it reads as follows : "And Philip and the 
Eunuch both went down to the water, and he bap- 
tized him; and when they came uipfrom the water, 
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and he saw 
him no more ; and he went on his way rejoicing." 

The preposition which I have translated from, in 
the above passage, is a different one from that used 
in the two other passages just considered. Before 
nouns denoting place, however, it signifies from and 
away from, equally with out of, and is so defined by 
the best lexicographers. See Donnegan, Bretschnei- 
der, and others. In this passage it is virtually re- 
stricted to the sense of from, by the relation of the 
clause in which it stands to the clause descriptive of 
the going down to the water. The mode of expres- 
sion in that clause is the same which is used in Matt. 
3: 16, and Mark 1: 10, where the accompanying 
preposition, expressing the relation of the ascent or 
going up to the water, signifies only from or away 
from, not out of. In those passages, therefore, the 



68 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

descent or going down must have been to the water, 
because the ascent, or going up, was only from it. 
In this passage, therefore, it ought to be presumed to 
have a similar meaning, unless the context requires 
a different one. But the context does not require a 
different one. It admits either of the same or of 
another, and admits of the same equally well with 
the other. Therefore, the descent, or going down, 
in Acts 8 : 38, is a descent or going down to the 
water. Consequently, the ascent, or going up, men- 
tioned in the following verse, must be an ascent or 
going up from the water, not out of it. 

A similar usage in respect to the preposition which 
I have translated from, is found in John 6: 23. 
"Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias." 
Matt. 17: 9,- "As they went down from the moun- 
tain.'" The preposition translated from, in these 
passages, is the same that expresses the relation of 
the ascent or going up to the water, in the case of 
Philip and the Eunuch. 

The passages relied on by immersionists, there- 
fore, to prove that, in the administration of Christian 
baptism,, there was a going down into the water and 
a coming up out of it, fail of proving the position 
assumed. The premise of the third immersionist 
argument, therefore, being unproved, and not being 
known to be true, no legitimate conclusion can be 
deduced from it in favor of immersion. 

But even if this premise was true, it would not 
prove immersion. In the ancient representations of 
the baptism of Christ by John, made by different 
artists, and handed down from the fifth century, the 
Saviour is constantly represented as standing up to 
the middle in water, and being baptized by pouring. 
There is a representation of this kind in the dome of 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 69 

a Baptistry at Ravenna, in Italy, a building erected 
in 454, A. D. 

In this piece, John the Baptist is represented as 
standing on the bank of the Jordan, holding a cross 
in his left hand, and in his right a shell of moderate 
size, from which he pours water on the head of 
Christ. Christ receives this standing naked, in the 
water up to his waist. 

There is another similar representation preserved 
in Mosaic, in the church in Cosmedin, in Ravenna, 
which was erected 401, A. D. In this, also, Christ 
stands naked in the river, with the water reaching to 
his waist, and John, standing on the bank of the 
river, pours water upon his head from a small shell 
or cup. Other similar representations are preserved 
of later date ; and some of which are considerably 
ancient, but of uncertain date. 

These representations teach us the views enter- 
tained by Christians in those times, respecting the 
mode of baptism administered by John to the Saviour. 
They show that Christ was supposed to have gone 
into the Jordan naked, and there to have been bap- 
tized by John, standing on the shore and pouring 
water upon him. 

This supposition is not more improbable than im- 
mersion. If, therefore, it could be proved that the 
subjects of John's baptism, went actually into the 
water to be baptized, and that the Eunuch baptized 
by Philip did the same, it would still be possible that 
the baptisms were administered by pouring or affu- 
sion, and that the going into the water was only pre- 
paratory to the reception of baptism, not any part, 
still less an essential part of the rite. 

In the argument under consideration, therefore, 
there are two defects. 



70 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

1. The premise is not proved, and cannot be 
shown to be true. Consequently, no legitimate con- 
clusion can be drawn from it in favor of immersion. 

2. The conclusion in favor of immersion is not 
a legitimate inference from the premise, if it was 
true* Therefore, if the premise was shown to be 
true, the conclusion would not legitimately follow. 
It would still be possible that the going into the 
water was only preparatory to pouring or affusion, 
and that the baptismal rite consisted essentially, not 
in going into the water, and not in being immersed 
in it after having gone into it, but in having water 
applied by affusion or pouring. 



Fourth argument in favor of Immersion. 

{31. Baptism is a symbolical representation of 
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Im- 
mersion is necessary to furnish any analogy on which 
to found such a representation. Therefore, immer- 
sion is the scriptural and proper mode of baptism. 

The premise of this argument is a hypothesis 
which depends for its support on two solitary pas- 
sages of scripture, Rom 6: 3-5, and Col. 2: 12. 
These passages have been considered, (525,) and 
have been shown not to afford any adequate support 
to this hypothesis. They admit of easy explanation 
on the supposition that baptism is to be administered 
by afrusion and sprinkling, as well as on that of im- 
mersion. They contain a manifest allusion to the 
design of baptism but not to the mode of its ad- 
ministration. 

The expression, buried with Christ by faith, is as 
significant and consistent as buried with Christ by 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 71 

baptism ; and being baptized to Christ is as signifi- 
cant, on the supposition of affusion and sprinkling, 
as on that of immersion. Being baptized to Christ, 
on either supposition, means the same thing. It 
means not being immersed or plunged into him, 
which would fall little short of being an absurdity, 
but being devoted to him by baptism as his disciples, 
or as his subjects and worshippers. 

Besides, if it was the design of baptism to repre- 
sent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, 
how did it represent these events before they occur- 
red? Christian baptism was instituted and adminis- 
tered to multitudes before Christ died. John 4:1. 
The disciples who administered these baptisms did 
not know as yet that Christ was to die ; still less that 
he was to die and rise again. With what propriety 
could they have administered this rite, when they 
did not know and could not explain its meaning? 
With what propriety could subjects receive it without 
being instructed in its true import and design? Ac- 
cording to the hypothesis that baptism represents the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the disci- 
ples, previous to the crucifixion, administered it in 
the most profound ignorance of its true import and 
design, and their converts received it in like ignor- 
ance. 

The signification of baptism here supposed, was 
entirely different from that of the Jewish baptisms 
previously instituted ; all of which were purifications, 
or symbols of moral and legal cleansing. Why was 
no explanation of this difference put on record by 
the Evangelists? Why was no allusion made to it 
in the entire gospel history? 

If Christian baptism was to be understood as of 
similar import and design to previously instituted 



72 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

baptisms, it required no explanation. But if it was 
now used for a purpose altogether new and unex- 
ampled, surely some intimation of this departure 
from previous customary usage was to be expected, 
and was necessary. 

But no intimation of this kind is found in the New 
Testament. We conclude, therefore, that none was 
necessary ; and that Christian baptism is of the same 
general import and significancy as the previously in- 
stituted baptisms practiced among the Jews. 



Fifth argument in favor of Immersion. 

\ 32. Immersion was the common mode of bap- 
tism at an early period after the age of the apostles, 
and has been handed down by tradition in the Greek, 
Nestorian, and Armenian churches, till the present 
time. 

This argument is not drawn from the scriptures 
but from uninspired history. It is adduced as a sup- 
plement to the scriptural arguments in favor of im- 
mersion. The scriptural arguments in favor of 
immersion have been seen to fail entirely of estab- 
lishing the. position in favor of which they are ad- 
duced. Can the cause and claims of immersion, 
unsupported by scriptural evidence, find adequate 
support from uninspired history? 

The fact of the early prevalence of immersion in 
the Christian church is freely admitted. This seems 
to have been the mode of baptism usually practiced 
in the times of Cyprian and Origen, in the third cen- 
tury of the Christian era. The premise of this argu- 
ment, therefore, is acknowledged to be true. Is the 
conclusion a necessary inference from the premise? 



IMMERSION AND POURING, 73 

If it is, the claims of immersion may yet stand; and 
extensive as the apostacy has been from the practice 
of this mode of baptism, the lost and wandering may 
yet be reclaimed and recovered. But if the con- 
clusion is not legitimate, then immersion is without 
adequate support from any quarter, and the immer- 
sionist is the wanderer and schismatic, that must be 
reclaimed to scriptural truth and Christian duty. 

The legitimacy of the conclusion in favor of im- 
mersion in this argument, depends upon the fact, 
whether it is possible that the church may have 
changed its mode of baptism in the interval between 
the third century of the Christian era and the times 
of the Apostles, or not. If such a change is possi- 
ble, then this conclusion is not legitimate. It does 
not conform to the premise from which it is deduced. 
Such a change was manifestly possible. The dis- 
crepancy between scriptural and classical usage in 
respect to the signification of the words baptize and 
baptism, must have been highly favorable to it The 
church enlarged itself, and from being limited to 
Jews, and persons acquainted with Jewish usages, 
it spread itself over the land of classic Greece, 
and throughout the Roman Empire, where a know- 
ledge of classic Greek usage was common to most 
literary men. Learning, however, was confined to 
the few, and these were the standards of opinion for 
others. 

Biblical learning was not extensive. When the 
classical scholar of Greece and Rome read the New 
Testament, he naturally interpreted it according to 
the most approved standards of Greek literature, just 
as multitudes of moderns, who ought to have known 
better, have done. The consequence was, that the 
same modes of speech which, to the well instructed 
6 



74 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Jew, taught affusion and sprinkling, would to him 
teach immersion, or plunging in the water. 

Add to this that the scriptural meaning of the 
word baptize was indefinite, that there were differ- 
ent modes of baptism possible, and that different 
modes had actually been instituted by Moses with 
the divine sanction; and is it not more than possible 
that, under such circumstances, a change was made ? 
Would not a change be easy and almost natural T 
Would not this be especially so in an age when learn- 
ing was confined to the few, and when Biblical learn- 
ing was far less extensively and far less thoroughly 
cultivated than classical? Besides the change was 
plausible. It was taking nothing away, but was 
rather adding to the pre-established ordinances of 
sprinkling and affusion, on the supposition that they 
were pre-established. 

The manner in which the ancient immersions were 
performed renders them suspicious. Subjects were 
immersed naked and in private ; they were anointed 
with oil and exorcised for the expulsion of spirits; 
after immersion, they were dressed in a white uni- 
form, as an emblem of their sanctification or moral 
cleansing. 

Is this apostolic usage ? Is this the unchanged in- 
stitution of Christ? I think not. Several things are 
unquestionably added, which did not belong to Chris- 
tian baptism as it was practiced by the apostles. 

Baptizing persons naked and in private was an ad- 
dition; anointing with oil and exorcising the subject 
for the expulsion of demons was a second addition; 
the white uniform put on after baptism was a third 
addition. These additions all bear testimony to the 
ignorance and superstition of the times. The per- 
sons who practiced them were not knavish, interested 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 75 

impostors and deceivers. They were misguided 
Christians. The facts adduced above show their lia- 
bility to be misled, and to what an extent they ac- 
tually were misled, in respect to the very rite in 
question. Is the practice of these persons a safe 
guide in favor of a mode of baptism not taught in 
the scriptures? Is it of sufficient authority to show 
that this mode was the apostolic one, notwithstand- 
ing that the apostles themselves have not shown it in 
their writings ? No. Such examples, as far as they 
agree with scriptural evidence, lend some confirma- 
tion to it. But where they deviate from it or go be- 
yond it, they amount to nothing. 

This argument, then, fails like all the others ; and 
the last hope of immersion is lost. 

The entire argument, therefore, in favor of im- 
mersion, when weighed in the balance of legitimate 
and conclusive reasoning, is found wanting. It does 
not establish the position assumed, and contributes 
nothing towards establishing it 



BAPTISM BY POURING. 

533. Pouring is a mode of Christian baptism for 
which some who discard immersion set up the claim 
of exclusive scriptural authority. Considered in re- 
spect to the amount of water made use of, it stands 
next to immersion. This mode of baptism was 
practiced at an early period in connection with im- 
mersion, or probably in connection with going into 
the water to a considerable depth, so that some part 
of the body, and the lower extremities, were entirely 
submerged, without a complete immersion of the 
whole body. 



76 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

The representations handed down from the fifth 
century, which were noticed in § 29, are indicative of 
the prevalence of pouring at that period, and also of 
the prevalence, at that time, of the opinion, that 
pouring was practiced in John's baptism. John is 
represented in both cases as pouring water upon the 
Saviour. A similar representation has been pre- 
served, for an indefinite period, on the door of a " 
church at Beneventura, in Italy. Christ stands naked 
in the water, with his lower extremities submerged, 
and water is poured upon his head by John, stand- 
ing entirely out of that element, from a small cup or 
dish. The picture is considered as quite ancient, 
but its precise date is not known. 

A monument has been found near Naples, repre- 
senting, in sculpture, the baptism of Argilulphus and 
Theolinda, King and Queen of the Longobardi, who 
occupied Beneventura in the sixth century. The 
sculpture was produced in the latter part of the sixth 
or beginning of the seventh century. The King and 
Queen are represented as standing naked in a bath- 
ing vessel, which is large enough in circumference 
for both of them to stand up together in it. They 
stand in a stooping posture. The top of the vessel 
does not quite come up to their middle. Water is 
poured upon them from a pitcher by a man in a mili- 
tary habit, who stands by the side of the vessel. 

On the same monument is an engraving repre- 
senting a person kneeling and in prayer by a bathing 
vessel. The bathing vessel is between one and two 
feet in height, that is, about one fourth the height of 
the worshipper, and of about the same diameter as 
height. In another part of the picture, persons are 
represented as kneeling on the ground, and receiving 



IMMERSION AND POURING. 77 

baptism by water being poured upon them from a 
pitcher. 

Other representations, both in sculpture and en- 
graving, represent baptisms at periods not far from 
the time above referred to ; and some of them, at un- 
certain periods, by pouring. 

The antiquity of this mode of baptism is an evi- 
dence in its favor. But this alone is not sufficient 
to establish it as of scriptural authority. It is al- 
ledged, however, in favor of pouring, that, in the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Spirit is de- 
scribed as being poured out. Acts 2: 16, 17; 10: 
45. Joel 2: 28. 

The pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
Pentecost, is evidently the baptism with the Holy 
Ghost, mentioned Acts 1 : 5, as to take place not 
many days from that time. But it is too slender a 
ground on which to establish a theory in respect to 
the scriptural mode of baptism with water; especial- 
ly as none of the Mosaic baptisms appear to have 
been administered in that mode. 

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is itself a 
figurative designation of the Spirit's influence on the 
minds of men, and not a proper object of emblem- 
atical representation in baptism. Baptism should 
represent the effect of the Spirit's influence, which 
is cleansing, not the mode of that influence. The 
mode of the Spirit's influence is not explained in the 
scriptures, and is not a legitimate object of symboli- 
cal representations. 

Pouring, therefore, is not adequately sustained as 
the scriptural mode of Christian baptism. The 
scriptural evidence on which it rests is fanciful and 
indecisive, and the historical evidence in its favor is 
drawn from too late a period, and accompanied by too 



78 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

many questionable circumstances, to be entitled to 
any great confidence as an indication of apostolic 
usage. These circumstances have been adverted to 
in considering the historical argument for immer- 
sion. 



CHAPTER VI. 

MODE OF CHRISTIAN B AP T I S M.- AF- 
FUSION AND SPRINKLING. 

Introductory Remarks. 

\ 34. Having disposed of immersion and pouring, 
affusion and sprinkling remain to be considered. If 
any particular mode of Christian baptism is ta.ught 
in the scriptures, it must be one or both of these. 
If one or both of these are not taught in the scrip- 
tures, we shall be compelled to conclude that no 
mode of baptism is enjoined, but that the church of 
Christ is left to its discretion in this matter, and may 
lawfully adopt one mode or other, as fancy or caprice 
may dictate. This, in the opinion of some, is the 
true state of the case. If it is a fact that there is 
no scriptural mode of Christian baptism, and that the 
subject is left indefinite, to be settled and altered as 
the feelings and judgment of men may dictate, the 
prospect of harmony and agreement on the subject, 
among the different branches of the Christian church, 
must be very unpromising. But if there is a well 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 79 

established scriptural mode of administering this rite, 
one that can be clearly exhibited and satisfactorily 
understood ; and if the evidences by which this ap- 
pears are within the comprehension of common 
minds, then existing delusions may yet be dispelled, 
and a general agreement be attained among mankind 
on this subject. As, therefore, other modes are 
found wanting in scriptural authority, it is a matter 
of great interest to know whether those of afiusion 
and sprinkling can be fully sustained. 



Specification of the arguments in favor of Affusion 
and Sprinkling. 

$35. 1. The modes of the Mosaic baptisms were 
principally by affusion and sprinkling. 

2. The Jewish traditionary baptism before meals, 
consisted of a ceremonial washing of the hands. 

3. The baptism of the Israelites at the time of 
crossing the Red Sea, under the direction of Moses, 
was by sprinkling. 

4. It was predicted that Christ should cleanse 
mankind from sin, under the imagery of sprinkling. 

5. Circumstantial evidence pertaining to the mode 
of Christian baptism is in favor of afiusion and sprink- 
ling. 

6. Afiusion and sprinkling are more suitable than 
immersion, to serve as modes of Christian baptism, 
on account of their greater significancy as modes of 
purification, and their greater convenience. 

7. The servants of God under the New Testa- 
ment dispensation, are described as being sealed in 
their foreheads. 



80 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



First argument in favor of Affusion and Sprinkling* 

$36. The modes of the Mosaic baptisms were 
principally affusion and sprinkling. Christian bap- 
tism, being subsequently instituted, and no specifica- 
tion of the mode of its administration being put on 
record, ought to be administered in the same mode 
as the previously instituted baptisms; therefore, it 
ought to be administered by affusion or sprinkling, 
or by affusion and sprinkling. 

The principal Mosaic baptisms were of frequent 
occurrence. They were often repeated in the life 
of every true Israelite, and consequently must have 
been familiar to the Jews. If there is no injunction 
of a different mode in the scriptures, we are bound 
to adopt the modes previously established, and of un- 
questionable divine authority, rather than to introduce 
others of man's invention. 

The propriety of this is obvious. Authorized 
modes and established precedents are of the nature 
of general laws. Deliberative bodies are governed 
by them in the transaction of business, courts are 
governed by them in the decision of cases, both in 
respect to property and life ; and, according to them, 
kings rule and princes decree justice. 

Affusion and sprinkling were modes of baptism in 
actual use at the time of the institution of Christian 
baptism, and they continued to be used by divine 
authority in the Mosaic baptisms, till some years af- 
ter the crucifixion. 

These divinely authorized modes of former and 
to some extent contemporary baptisms, are a rule for 
our direction in respect to Christian baptism, unless 
we have specific information enjoining a different 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 81 

mode. But we have no such information; therefore, 
we ought to baptize by affusion and sprinkling. 
These modes are actually enjoined by precedents, 
which, in the circumstances of the case, are laws, 
and from which we may not lawfully depart without 
divine permission. 



Second argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
ling. 

\ 37. The Jewish traditionary baptism which was 
practiced statedly before meals, being a washing of 
the hands for the purpose of ceremonial cleansing, 
is an evidence of Jewish provincial usage, in respect 
to the meaning of the Greek words baptize and bap- 
tism, which favors afrusion, or the application of 
water with the hand, as the appropriate mode of 
Christian baptism. 

There is an allusion to this in Luke 11: 37, 38. 
"And as he (Jesus Christ) spake, a certain Pharisee 
invited him to dine with him. And he went in and 
sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it 
he marvelled (or expressed surprise,) that he was not 
fast baptized before dinner.'" 

The verb which I have translated baptized, in this 
passage, is incorrectly rendered washed in the com- 
mon English bible. It is the same which is used in 
all places where Christian baptism is spoken of, and 
it is never used in the New Testament to denote a 
secular washing of any kind. The rite referred to 
in this passage is, beyond all doubt, a baptism. The 
observance of it was so general among the Jews, 
and it was deemed so necessary, that the Pharisee 



82 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

wondered that Christ did not perform it upon himself 
previous to sitting down to dinner. 

In Matt. 15: 2, and Mark 7: 2, we are informed 
that the Scribes and Pharisees found fault because 
the disciples of Christ did not perform a ceremonial 
washing of their hands previous to partaking of their 
common meals. They denominate this neglect a 
transgression of the tradition of the elders, and refer 
to the hands of the disciples as being ceremonially 
defiled on account of it. 

Here we have, in one case, a baptism before meals 
mentioned by that title, and in the other, a sacred 
washing of the hands as a rite of ceremonial purifi- 
cation. We have also proved, in former sections, 
that the Jewish purifications were baptisms. The 
purifications, therefore, referred to in Matthew and 
Mark, and the baptism referred to in Luke, are one 
and the same thing. This is evident from the fol- 
lowing considerations : 

1. Purifications are baptisms. The washing of 
the hands referred to in Matthew and Mark are puri- 
fications; therefore, they are baptisms. If they are 
baptisms they are baptisms practiced statedly before 
meals, and therefore are rites of the kind denomi- 
nated baptism in Luke 11: 38. 

2. The supposition that the washing of the hands 
as a ceremonial purification, mentioned in Matt. 15 : 
2, and in Mark 7 : 2, is not a baptism, leads to the 
conclusion that the Jews practiced two religious rites 
of purification before meals; one of which consisted 
in the washing of the hands, and the other, accord- 
ing to the hypothesis of immersionists, in the immer- 
sion of the entire body. 

Is this a fact? Were there two such rites preva- 
lent among the Jews in the time of Christ? Has 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 83 

immersion, before meals, ever prevailed in any coun- 
try or in any age? These questions admit of an 
answer only in the negative. 

The uniform practice of immersion, before meals, 
as a religious rite of purification, or for any other 
purpose, has never prevailed in any age or country, 
and cannot prevail. It is a yoke which is too heavy 
to be bome. It would be an oppressive yoke in any 
country, and at all seasons of the year. In such a 
country as Palestine, and in the winter season, it 
would, in respect to a large proportion of the inhab- 
itants, be utterly impracticable. 

The hypothesis of immersion, before meals, as a 
customary rite of religious purification among the 
Jews in the time of Christ and previously, is inad- 
missible on account of its impracticability, as well as 
for the entire want of any evidence whatever, in its 
favor. It is a mere figment of imagination, formed 
to sustain a theory, and undeserving of the least con- 
fidence. 

It appears, therefore, that the baptism referred to 
in Luke 11: 38, where the Pharisee wondered that 
Christ was not first baptized before dinner; and the 
washing of the hands before meals, referred to in 
Matt. 15: 2, and Mark 7: 2, are one and the same 
religious rite. Consequently, persons were baptised 
by the washing of the hands j and the appropriation 
of the words baptize and baptism, to denote this 
washing, was according to the Jewish provincial 
usage of those times. 

Hence the appropriation of the same words, with- 
out definition, to denote Christian baptism, indicates 
that this was a religious washing, not an immersion. 
A ceremonial washing is performed by affusion. 



84 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Third argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
ling. 

§38. The allusion to the wetting of the Israelites 
with rain on the occasion of their being led across 
the Red Sea, by Moses, on dry land, and to their 
being wet by the Sea on that occasion, as baptisms, 
by Paul, proves that this word appropriately denoted 
sprinkling according to Jewish usage, and is an evi- 
dence in favor of sprinkling, as an appropriate mode 
of Christian baptism. 

This allusion is contained in 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. 
" Moreover brethren, I would not that ye should be 
ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized 
to Moses by the cloud and the sea." 

I have adopted the rendering by the cloud and by 
the sea, instead of in the cloud and in the sea, for 
reasons set forth in {25. 

By is the proper rendering of the preposition here 
used in the original, when it stands before nouns 
denoting instruments, agents, or means. The nouns 
which here follow it, denote means. The baptisms 
were by means of the cloud, and by means of the 
sea. 

How the Israelites were baptized by means of the 
cloud, is clearly shown by Ps. 77: 16-20. "The 
waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee and 
were afraid. The depths, also, were troubled. The 
clouds poured out water. The skies sent out a 
sound. Thine arrows, also, went abroad; the voice 
of thy thunder was in heaven. The lightnings light- 
ened the world. The earth trembled and shook. 
Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great wa- 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 85 

ters, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou leddest 
thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and 
Aaron." 

It appears from this description, that the passage 
of the Red Sea was accompanied with the fall of 
rain. Clouds are spoken of as pouring out rain. 
The mode of the baptism of the Israelites by the 
cloud, therefore, must have been by sprinkling, the 
universal mode of the pouring out of water from 
clouds. 

How they were baptized by the sea, remains to be 
inquired into. This could not have been by immer- 
sion, because we are expressly told, Ex. 14: 21, 22, 
"That the Lord caused the sea to go back, by a 
strong east wind, all that night, and made the sea dry 
land, and the waters were divided. And the cnil- 
dren of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon 
the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them 
on their right hand, and on their left.*" 

The Israelites were not, therefore, immersed in 
the Red Sea. The apostle, however, tells us, that 
they were baptized by it. How was this baptism ad- 
ministered? The mode of the baptism of the Isra- 
elites by the Red Sea, is not explained. It was 
evidently, however, not an immersion, for the theory 
of the immersion of the Israelites in the Red Sea at 
the time of their crossing it, would be in contradic- 
tion to the Mosaic narrative. 

Amid the fury of the storm and wind which 
accompanied the passage of the Israelites on this 
occasion, and with the sea standing as a wall on their 
right hand and left, it is not improbable that they 
were sprinkled with its spray. If so, their baptism, 
by means of the sea as well as that by means of the 
cloud, was administered by sprinkling. 



86 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

According to New Testament usage, therefore, 
sprinkling is a legitimate mode of baptism. 



Fourth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
ling. 

$39. f The prediction, that Christ should purify 
men by sprinkling, which must be presumed to be 
fulfilled, by his administration of the Gospel dispen- 
sation, is an evidence in favor of sprinkling as an 
appropriate mode of Christian baptism, and conse- 
quently, the scriptural mode. 

Isa. 52 : 15, " So shall he sprinkle many nations." 
Ezek. 36 : 25, 26, " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean. From all your 
filthiness, and from all your evils, will I cleanse you. 
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you." 

The first of the above passages relates directly 
to Christ, and declares what he was to do under the 
Gospel dispensation. The second passage is a dec- 
laration of God, as to what he will do during the 
same period. 

If baptism is performed by sprinkling, it is a liter- 
al and beautiful fulfilment of these predictions. By 
means of this rite, Christ is now sprinkling many na- 
tions, and ceremonially cleansing them from all their 
filthiness and from all their idols. 

If Christian baptism was to have been by immer- 
sion, the more natural and more expressive form of 
the above predictions would have been, So shall he 
immerse many nations. Then will I immerse you in 
clean watery and ye shall be clean, S$c. 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 87 

But the Holy Spirit made choice of tjie term 
sprinkle, rather than immerse, to describe this 
cleansing. Why then should he not be supposed to 
have made choice of the mode of sprinkling, rather 
than that of immersion, to represent the same in 
Gospel times? If sprinkling is an appropriate and 
expressive figure by which to represent the cleansing 
of men, as that cleansing was foretold, it is an equally 
appropriate and expressive symbol by which to repre- 
sent that cleansing, when it is actually performed. 



Fifth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
ling. 

5 40. Circumstances attending the administration 
of Christian baptism by the apostles, in several in- 
stances, are favorable to the doctrine of allusion and 
sprinkling, and unfavorable to that of immersion. 

In all cases where direct testimony is not decisive, 
or where it is difficult to be obtained to such an ex- 
tent as is desired, circumstantial evidence is naturally 
resorted to, and is often highly serviceable to the 
cause of truth and justice. Many an important case 
that would otherwise be doubtful, is rendered clear 
by this means; and many an important truth, that 
would otherwise elude the grasp of the human un- 
derstanding, is by this means reached and secured. 

Circumstances cannot lie. Language may change, 
and the customary signification of words in one age 
may be lost in another, but circumstances do not 
vary. They speak the same language, and sustain 
the same relations to things on which they attend, in 
distant and romote periods, which they spoke and 
sustained at the time of their occurrence. 



88 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

None of the circumstances of the apostolic bap- 
tisms, as recorded in the New Testament, indicate 
immersion. The only one which can be supposed, 
by any one, to indicate immersion, is that of the 
going to and from the watei by Philip and the Eunuch 
related in Acts 8 : 38, 39, improperly translated in 
the common bible, going into the ivater and out of it. 
See J 30. 

Several circumstances relating to the Apostolic 
baptisms, are indicative of the more easy and con- 
venient modes of affusion and sprinkling. 

1. The number converted and baptized on the day 
of Pentecost. Acts 2: 41, "Then they that gladly 
received his word, were baptized; and the same day, 
there were added to them, about three thousand 
souls." 

It appears from the context, that Peter began his 
public discourse about 9 o'clock, A, M, After this 
hour, he preached the gospel to the conviction and 
conversion of about three thousand persons. These 
persons were subsequently instructed sufficiently to 
receive baptism, their professions of faith taken, and 
their baptism actually administered on the same day. 
All this was done in a decent and orderly manner. 
For God is a God of order; and it was done under 
the direction of his Spirit. 

We do not say that the immersion of these thou- 
sands, within the limited time allowed for their bap- 
tism, could not have been performed by the apostles 
and their assistants; but we are clearly authorized to 
consider it extremely improbable, from the fact of the 
great number baptized, and the short time allowed 
for their baptism, that this was performed by immer- 
sion. The apostles do not seem to have been sur- 
rounded by a great number of fellow-laborers at this 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 89 

time. If not alone they were attended by compara- 
tively few. In a meeting for the most important 
business, held a short time before, only a hundred 
and twenty attended. But few if any of these could 
have been qualified to administer baptisms. Yet 
three thousand baptisms were administered, and three 
thousand communicants received to the church in 
the little portion of that day which was not taken up 
with other religious exercises. Affusion and sprink- 
ling take much less time than immersion. It is pro- 
bable, therefore, from the greatness of the number, 
and the shortness of the time that could have been 
had for their baptism, that they were baptized by 
affusion and sprinkling. 

2. Saul arose and was baptized, after he had 
been three days without food, and also without sight. 
The inspired narrative informs us, Acts 9 : 17, 18, 
19, that Annanias went, by divine command, into the 
house where he was, laid his hands on him, restored 
him to sight, and communicated to him the Holy 
Ghost. Upon the laying on of his hands, "there 
fell immediately from his eyes, as it were, scales, 
and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
baptized. And when he had received food he was 
strengthened." 

Here is no going to the water, and no notice of 
any of the conveniences for immersion. 

A blind man, weak from three days' anxiety and 
fasting, receives his sight, arises from his couch, that 
is, assumes the standing posture, and is baptized. 

These circumstances agree well with affusion and 
sprinkling; but they do not agree with immersion. 

3. The administration of baptism, in the night, 
in a prison, indicates affusion and sprinkling. Paul 
and Silas had been thrust into the inner prison at 

7 



90 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Philippi. The doors of the prison were opened at 
midnight by an earthquake. Paul and Silas preached 
the Gospel with effect to the jailer and his family. 
The jailer's family appear, as is usual, to have occu- 
pied apartments within the prison. After the con- 
version of the jailer, he took the prisoners, Acts 16 : 
33-35, " the same hour of the night, and washed 
their stripes, and was baptized, and all his, straight- 
way ; and when he had brought them into his house, 
he set food before them and rejoiced, believing in 
God, with all his house. And when it was day, the 
magistrates sent officers, saying, let these men go." 

The preaching was performed after midnight. 
The jailer and his family were converted, sufficiently 
instructed to receive baptism, and actually baptized 
before morning; and though the jailer had brought 
Paul and Silas to his own appartment, it appears from 
their subsequent declaration that they would not 
leave the prison, unless the proper officers came and 
fetched them out, that they could not yet have left 
the prison. 

In these unpropitious circumstances, and before, 
day, the jailer and his family were baptized. We 
cannot say with certainty that their immersion was 
impossible, but it certainly was improbable. All the 
circumstances of the case harmonize much better 
with the doctrine of affusion and sprinkling than 
with that of immersion. 



Sixth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 



§41- Affusion and sprinkling are more suitable 
than immersion to serve as modes of baptism, on the 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 91 

ground of their greater convenience and fitness for 
the purpose intended to be attained. 

God's appointments are all founded in fitness and 
propriety. If some modes of baptism have a greater 
fitness than others, for the purposes intended to be 
attained by this rite, that fitness is a presumptive evi- 
dence in their favor as being the modes of God's 
choice and appointment. 

Affusion is the most expressive and significant 
mode possible of applying water for ceremonial 
purification, or as a symbol of internal and moral 
cleansing; because it is the usual mode of physical 
cleansing. When we wash ourselves for purposes of 
physical cleansing, we usually apply the water by 
affusion. It would appear most fit, therefore, -to 
adopt this mode of applying water in a rite intended 
to represent moral cleansing. The most usual and 
effectual mode of physical cleansing is the most ex- 
pressive sign of moral cleansing. Affusion, there- 
fore, is, of all modes of applying water, best adapted 
to be used in baptism as a symbol of moral cleans- 
ing. 

A rite designed for universal application ought to 
be such as can be administered at all times, in all 
places, and to all classes of subjects. Baptism is 
designed for universal application. Therefore, a 
proper mode of baptism is one which can be ad- 
ministered in all places, at all times, and to all classes 
of subjects. Affusion and sprinkling have these 
properties; immersion has not. There are places 
where immersion cannot be administered; there are 
times and seasons of the year when it cannot be ad- 
ministered without great difficulty and danger to 
numerous subjects. There are persons in a certain 
condition and state of health, who are the proper 



92 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

subjects of baptism, to whom immersion cannot be 
conveniently and safely administered at any time. 

Affusion and sprinkling, therefore, have greatly 
the advantage of immersion, on the ground of con- 
venience and fitness for the purpose intended to be 
accomplished by baptism. This convenience and 
fitness are evidences in their favor. 



Seventh argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
ling. 

{ 42. The servants of God, under the New Tes- 
tament dispensation, are described as being sealed 
in their foreheads. Rev. 7 : 3. " An angel cried 
with a loud voice," to agents who had power to hurt 
the earth, " saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, 
nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our 
God in their foreheads." The wicked are described 
as " those who have not the seal of God in their 
foreheads." Rev. 9: 4. 

The word translated seal in the latter of the pas- 
sages above referred to, is the same which is applied 
to describe circumcision in Rom. 4: 11, where it is 
called a seal of the righteousness of faith, or more 
properly translated, a seal of justification by faith. 

Baptism has been shown to be the sealing ordin- 
ance of the Christian church. It seals the baptized 
as the Lord's. It is the initiatory rite administered 
to every adult convert on his introduction into the 
church, and is the divinely appointed seal of Chris- 
tian discipleship. 

To seal the servants of God, therefore, is to bap- 
tize them ; and to seal them in their foreheads, is to 
baptize them in their foreheads. But if the seal of 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 93 

baptism is applied to the forehead, as is expressly 
stated, it cannot be by immersion, and must naturally 
be by affusion and sprinkling. Immersion applies 
this seal to the whole body, affusion and sprinkling, 
to the forehead. 



Conclusion in favor of Affusion and Sprinkling. 

5 43. On the whole, it appears clearly that affu- 
sion and sprinkling are the scriptural modes of Chris- 
tian baptism, and the only mode which the scriptures 
sanction. The conclusion in favor of affusion and 
sprinkling is sustained by several independent argu- 
ments, each of which is sufficient of itself for the 
support of that conclusion. 

To overthrow this conclusion, it is not enough to 
show that some one or more of the arguments which 
sustain it is inconclusive. It must be shown that no 
one of them is conclusive, and that all together are 
not so. If this can be done, the conclusion can be 
overthrown; otherwise not. 

If the arguments adduced in favor of affusion and 
sprinkling are not conclusive, it must be on one or 
other of these two grounds. Either that the premise 
is false or uncertain, or that the conclusion is not a 
logical deduction from the premise, in cases where 
the premise is admitted to be true. Which of the 
premises in the foregoing arguments is false or un- 
certain? And if the premises are true, which of the 
conclusions are not legitimately inferred from their 
premises? Let the reader examine and ascertain, 
and having ascertained let him show. 

If this deficiency cannot be shown, the conclusion 
must be admitted to be true, and to be as well en- 



94 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

titled to universal adoption as the demonstrated truths 
of geometry and algebra. 

But if the foregoing arguments should be found, 
on critical examination, to be defective, and not to 
establish the conclusion as true, it will remain to be 
inquired whether they render it probable. Many 
things can be proved to be probable which cannot be 
proved to be true; and the higher degrees of proba- 
bility, in cases where certainty cannot be attained, 
have all the practical importance of certainty itself. 

Truth is the highest principle of action to rational 
beings, and is always to be attained where the at- 
tainment of it is possible. But where truth cannot 
be attained with certainty, we are bound to be gov- 
erned by probabilities. In such cases, strong proba- 
bilities are as valid principles of action as truth itself; 
and our obligations to submit to them are as impera- 
tive. 

If, therefore, affusion and sprinkling have not been 
proved with certainty to have been the scriptural 
modes of baptism, has not this conclusion been ren- 
dered probable ? Has it not been rendered highly 
probable ? If it is only probable, we ought to adopt 
affusion and sprinkling in preference to modes which 
are not probable. If it is highly probable, we ought 
to adopt it in preference to modes which are in a less 
degree probable, and still more in preference to those 
which are in no degree probable. 

The highest degree of probability is next to cer- 
tainty, and does not differ from it to any appreciable 
extent. So far as all practical purposes are con- 
cerned, it does not differ from certainty at all. 

If the arguments adduced in favor of affusion and 
sprinkling, therefore, fall short of establishing the 
conclusion deduced from them as certain, and yet 



AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING. 95 

establish it as probable, the degree of probability 
which they establish will require to be estimated. 
If the probability established is of a high degree, the 
conclusion will possess a proportionably high value. 
If the degree of probability is indefinitely high, the 
conclusion will be an indefinitely near approximation 
to certainty, and will not be inferior to certainty in a 
practical point of view. 

The value of a certain or even of a highly proba- 
ble conclusion in favor of affusion and sprinkling, is 
immense. It is a basis of union and agreement 
among Christians, and will ultimately bring them to- 
gether. 

A conclusive argument has all the effect of a dis- 
covery. It may be disputed and opposed for a time ; 
but it will, by and by, assert its claims with effect. 
When a truth is once discovered and demonstrated, 
it becomes the property of the human race, and at- 
tains a gradually increasing diffusion, until it is gen- 
erally acknowledged. 



A true estimate of Immersion. 

\ 44. If immersion is an unscriptural mode of 
baptism, it ought not to be persisted in. It does not. 
follow that persons are unbaptized because they are 
baptized in unscriptural modes. An unscriptural 
mode of baptism may be baptism, just as an unscrip- 
tural mode of partaking of the Lord's Supper may 
be the Lord's Supper. But in either case there can 
be no reasonable objection to keeping as close as 
practicable to scriptural modes. The nearest practi- 
cable approximation to the scriptural mode of re- 
ceiving the Lord's Supper is to receive it in the 



96 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

sitting posture, the usual posture in which we receive 
our meals. The apostles, in the first instance, re- 
ceived it reclining, the usual posture of receiving 
set meals at that time. The customary posture of 
receiving our usual meals having changed, there is a 
propriety in deviating from a scriptural mode which 
had no significancy, but was entirely accidental, and in 
adopting the more convenient one of sitting. 

This change has respect to a mode which is acci- 
dental and insignificant, and is adopted only because 
it was in agreement with the usages of those times. 
It is changed in order to bring it into agreement with 
the usages of modern times. 

But no such reasons exist for changing the scrip- 
tural mode of Christian baptism. Sprinkling and 
affusion were not accidental modes of administering 
this rite; neither are they without significancy. IN© 
change of manners has occurred or can occur which 
will render these modes inappropriate or undesira- 
ble. We are not, therefore, at liberty to depart from 
them. The prevailing departure from them in the 
case of immersionist churches, is a violation of Chris- 
tian order and a breach of Christian duty, which 
nothing but ignorance can palliate, and which nothing 
can justify. 

Modes which are significant, and which God has 
established, may not be departed from. They are 
as obligatory as the rites to which they appertain. 

Immersion, however, is a valid baptism ; because, 
though not a scriptural mode of administering this 
ordinance, it is used in the belief that it is scrip- 
tural, and is administered for the principal or most 
essential purposes of Christian baptism. The high- 
est end of Christian baptism is that which it accom- 
plishes as a sacrament or seal of consecration to God, 



SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 97 

as his professed worshippers. That end is not lost 
sight of by immersionists j consequently, their bap- 
tisms are entitled to be considered valid, though not 
scriptural in respect to the mode. 



CHAPTER Vn. 

SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Adult converts who have not previously been bap- 
tized. 

§ 45. There is a general agreement among Chris- 
tians, that all adult persons who have not previously 
been baptized, are appropriate subjects of Christian 
baptism when they become Christians. Persons be- 
come Christians by receiving Christianity as a system 
of truth, adopting its principles, and obeying its 
laws. All unbaptized adult persons, therefore, who 
receive Christianity as true, adopt its principles and 
obey its laws, are entitled to receive Christian bap- 
tism. It is the duty of all adult persons who are not 
Christians to become such; and having become such, 
if unbaptized, it is their duty to receive baptism. 

So far, the scripture doctrine respecting the sub- 
jects of Christian baptism is clear and unembarrassed, 
and generally understood by Christians of all orders, 



98 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Christian baptism is to be administered but once to 
the same subject 

$46. It is further obvious that we have no scrip- 
tural authority for administering Christian baptism 
but once to the same subject. The scriptures do 
not authorize a repetition of this rite in any case 
whatever. It may not, therefore, be lawfully re- 
peated. To repeat it is to transcend our legitimate 
authority, and acting without authority our action be- 
comes void. No persons, therefore, who have once 
been duly baptized, can be again appropriate subjects 
of baptism. Their second baptism is without divine 
authority, and is therefore not a valid ordinance. 

Backsliders, when reclaimed, may renew their 
covenant with God and their profession of religion, 
but they may not lawfully be baptized anew. So 
those baptized in infancy, on the supposition that in- 
fant baptism is agreeable to the scriptures, may enter 
in covenant with God and his people" when they be- 
come adults, but they may not be baptized again. 



Question respecting Infant Baptism. 

§47. Whether infants are appropriate subjects of 
baptism on the ground of the faith of their parents, 
is a question which has greatly divided and agitated 
the church for more than two hundred years past. I 
is a point in Christian doctrine that ought to be set- 
tled beyond reasonable dispute. God designed his 
church to be one. A diversity of sentiments on the 
question whether infants are appropriate subjects of 
Christian baptism, together with a corresponding di- 



SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 

versity respecting the mode of baptism, has rent it 
asunder into separate bodies, holding no communion 
with each other. 

These diversities of sentiment must be removed, 
and the church re-united, before the entire conver- 
sion of the world. The legitimate mode of removing 
them is to show what the true scripture doctrine is on 
the subject of the title of infants to Christian bap- 
tism, with such clearness and force of argument, and 
with such fulness of illustration, that all sensible per- 
sons will be able to understand it. This it is pro- 
posed to do on the present occasion. 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 

§48. 1. There is no specific precept for baptizing 
them. 

2. There is no unquestionable example of infant 
baptism in the New Testament. 

3. Infants are not the subjects of faith and re- 
pentance, and therefore are not qualified to receive 
baptism. 

4. The covenant relations of God and men have 
been so changed in the Christian dispensation, that 
infants are no longer included with their parents in 
the religious covenant which subsists between God 
and his people. 



First argument against the baptism of Infants. 

549. There is no specific precept for baptizing 
infants in the New Testament; therefore, they ought 
not to be baptized. 



100 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

The premise of this argument is admitted. There 
is no specific precept for the baptism of infants in 
the New Testament. The conclusion, however, is 
not a legitimate deduction from this premise. 

Laws are of two kinds, general and specific. A 
general law is one which applies to two or more 
specific cases, or classes of cases. A specific law is 
one which applies to a single case or a single class 
of cases only. It is not possible to make specific 
laws to meet all cases ; and it is not desirable to have 
them if it was possible. A comparatively few gen- 
eral laws are sufficient to meet an immense variety 
of cases. One advantage of general laws is, that it 
takes less time and labor to learn them than it would 
take to learn specific laws, comprehending all the 
cases to which they apply. The scriptures deal ex- 
tensively in general laws. The ten commandments 
are beautiful examples of these. They apply to 
thousands of various cases. 

If there is no specific law in the New Testament 
requiring the baptism of infants, it remains to be as- 
certained whether there is any general law requiring 
it. The absence of a specific law is no proof of the 
absence of obligation, provided a general law em- 
braces the subjects to which that obligation apper- 
tains. 

Specific laws are only necessary to reach cases 
which general laws cannot reach. 

The want of an express precept for baptizing in- 
fants, therefore, is no evidence against the scriptural 
authority of infant baptism. Because that authority 
may be vested in general laws, and if so, specific 
laws are not necessary to establish it. 

Besides, many divine laws are not revealed to us 
in the form of precepts. Even in cases where they 



SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 101 

were originally delivered in that form, the revelation 
of them to us may be in a different form. 

This is the case with the law respecting the Chris- 
tian Sabbath. The observance of the Christian Sab- 
bath is not enjoined by precept in the New Testament, 
still less by a specific precept. It is amply enjoined, 
however, by other means, and is one of the bulwarks 
of the Christian faith. So, for aught the above ar- 
gument shows, it may be with the baptism of infants. 
It may be enjoined by the general law relating to the 
baptism of disciples ; and if so, it is as really our 
duty to extend the application of this rite to infants, 
as if we had explicit laws requiring it. 

It appears, therefore, that the absence of precepts 
or commands, either general or particular, does not 
prove the non-existence of laws ; because laws may 
be revealed in other forms besides that of commands. 
It appears further that the absence of specific laws 
does not prove the non-existence of obligation; be- 
cause obligation may be created by general laws, 
binding us to perform particular duties comprehended 
with other duties under those laws, and expressed 
only in general terms. 

The want of a specific precept for baptizing in- 
fants does not, therefore, invalidate the authority of 
infant baptism. It only refers us to a more general 
law, relating to the subjects of baptism, to see 
whether infants are comprehended among the other 
subjects of this rite or not. 

If infants are included in a general law respecting 
the subjects of baptism, that general law will possess 
all the binding force in favor of the baptism of in- 
fants which could belong to a specific law. 

The first argument against the baptism of infants, 
therefore, is a failure. It proves nothing against the 
doctrine which it is adduced to disprove. 



102 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Second argument against the baptism of Infants. 

5 50. There is no specific example of the baptism 
of infants in the New Testament. It is incredible 
that this should have been the case, if infant baptism 
had been practiced by the apostles. Therefore, the 
baptism of infants is not an apostolic usage. 

The premise of this argument is admitted as in 
the former case, and as in the former case the con- 
clusion is denied. It would be very natural to look 
for specific examples of infant baptism in the New 
Testament, provided infants were baptized by the 
apostles. But the absence of such examples does 
not prove that infants were not baptized. 

If it can be proved that infants were appropriate 
subjects of Christian baptism, and that the law de- 
termining the subjects of this rite, clearly compre- 
hended them, we are authorized to conclude that 
they were baptized, notwithstanding that no specific 
record is made of their baptism in the New Testa- 
ment. 

The title of infants to baptism depends upon a 
law including them among the subjects of this rite, 
not upon the contingency of specific examples being 
put on record in the scriptures, of obedience to this 
law by the apostles. Examples of obedience by the 
apostles add nothing to the force of laws which they 
illustrate, and the want of recorded examples de- 
tracts nothing from it. 

If the baptism of infants is according to Christian 
law, it was practiced by the apostles. The position 
that, if infants were baptized by the apostles, some 
specific example of it must have been left on record 
in the New Testament, is without adequate founda- 



SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 103 

tion. It is an unauthorized assumption which has 
never yet been proved and never can be proved. 

Examples of infant circumcision occur but seldom 
in the Old Testament. Century after century passes 
away without the occurence of any. Infant baptism 
may not have had a greater claim to the notice of the 
writers of the New Testament, than infant circum- 
cision had to that of the writers of the Old Testa- 
ment. 

The absence of any examples of circumcision 
during long periods of the Old Testament history, 
does not prove the disuse of infant circumcision 
during those periods. No more does the absence of 
any specific examples of infant baptism in the New 
Testament history, prove that infants were not bap- 
tized in those times. 



Tliird argument against the baptism of Infants. 

551. Infants are not the subjects of faith and re- 
pentance, and therefore are pot qualified to receive 
baptism. 

In the case of adults, baptism naturally follows 
faith and repentance. The order of duties is, first, 
faith and repentance ; second, baptism. Hence the 
expressions, "He that believe th and is baptized," 
and "Repent and be baptized." This, however, 
does not prove that infants must repent and believe 
in order to be baptized. 

Repentence and faith, are indispensable religious 
duties incumbent on adults. Therefore, they must 
perform them in order to be baptized. These duties 
are not incumbent on infants. Therefore, infants 
need not repent and believe in order to be baptized. 



104 SUBJECTS OF CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 

It is no where explicitly stated in the scriptures, 
that faith and repentance must precede baptism, in 
the case of adults. This doctrine, however, is 
taught with sufficient clearness by implication. We 
do not find it explicitly stated in the scriptures, but 
we infer it, legitimately, from what we do find there. 
To this extent, our inference in respect to the neces- 
sary precedence of faith and repentance to baptism, 
is legitimate, but no farther. Those passages from 
which we infer that adults must repent and believe 
in order to be baptized, furnish grounds for no such 
legitimate inference in respect to infants. 

The scripture requirements of faith and repen- 
tance, have respect to adults, not to infants. They 
furnish no evidence, therefore, against the fitness of 
infants to receive baptism. 

The propriety of applying baptism to infants, 
equally with adults, is clearly shown by the Mosaic 
baptisms, several of which were applicable to them. 
The infantile state is no necessary disqualification 
for receiving Christian baptism, more than it was 
under the former dispensation for receiving the 
Mosaic baptisms. 

Baptism has the same symbolical meaning when 
applied to infants, which it has in application to 
adults. It is in respect to them, as it is in respect to 
adults, a seal of discipleship to Christ, and a mark 
of consecration to God, as his servants and worship- 
pers. Baptism does not mark the infant as a believer 
or a penitent, but it does, equally with adult baptism, 
mark its subject as a consecrated person, and seal to 
that subject, the promised grace of God. It also 
seals the obligation of the subject, to serve and wor- 
ship God. 



SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 

It appears clearly, therefore, that the want of faith 
and repentance, on the part of infants, is no disqual- 
ification for baptism, and no evidence that they are 
not to be baptized. 



Fourth argument against the Baptism of Infants. 

{52. The covenant relations of God and man 
have been so changed, in the Christian dispensation, 
that infants are no longer included, with their pa- 
rents, in the religious covenant which subsists be- 
tween God and his people. 

A change of covenant relations between God and 
his people, is supposed, by some, to have been pre- 
dicted in Jer. 31 : 31-34. "Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, 
not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand, to 
bring them out of the land of Egypt, (which, my 
covenant, they broke, although I was a husband to 
them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the cove- 
nant that I will make with the house of Israel : Af- 
ter those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in 
their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and 
will be their God and they shall be my people. And 
they shall teach no more, every man his neighbor 
and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, 
for they shall all know me, from the least to the 
greatest of them, saith the Lord : For I will forgive 
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no 
more." 

8 



108 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

This passage is quoted at large in Heb. 8 : 8-12 f 
and applied to the gospel dispensation, as being one 
of greater perfection than the Mosaic. 

The doctrine of the new covenant, made between 
God and man under the gospel dispensation, is made 
use of, by the apostle, to prove the superiority of 
Christ, to the Levitical priesthood. The ministry of 
Christ is claimed to be more excellent, than that of 
the Levitical priesthood, by as much as the covenant 
of God with man, under the Christian dispensation, 
exceeds in excellence, that made with the Israelites 
at their departure from Egypt. 

The superior excellence of the Christian to the 
Mosaic covenant, consisted, not in the exclusion of 
infants from a joint interest with their parents, but 
in the actual conversion and sanctification of men. 
Under the Mosaic covenant men were not generally 
converted ; under the Christian covenant, conversion 
should become, not only general, but universal. 

The exclusion of children from a joint interest 
with their parents in the Christian covenant, receives 
no support, whatever, from the inspired description 
of this covenant, and is not to be admitted without 
evidence. We are not authorized to suppose the 
Christian covenant to differ from the Mosaic, any 
farther than a difference can be clearly proved from 
the scriptures. No difference can be proved from 
the scriptures in respect to the joint interest of chil- 
dren, with their parents, in covenant blessings. 
Therefore, none ought to be assumed. 

On the whole, it appears, that the arguments 
against infant baptism, are not conclusive. They 
do not prove, that infants ought not to be baptized* 
It remains to determine whether they ought to be 
baptized. 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 107 



SPECIFICATION OF ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF INFANT* 
BAPTISM. 

{53. 1. Membership of children in the Christian 
church. 

2. Analogy of Christian baptism to circumcision. 

3. Perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant. 

4. Designation of the subjects of Christian bap- 
tism, by general terms. 

5. Absence of any exclusion of infants from bap- 
tism. 

6. Provision for the early conversion of children. 

7. Testimony of the early Christian fathers. 

8. The blessing of God on infant church-member- 
ship and baptism. 



CHAPTER Vni. 

CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

§54. The children of church-members are enti- 
tled to be admitted to the Christian church, on their 
parents' account. 

The doctrine of infant baptism is mainly impor- 
tant, as it is comiected with other doctrines respect- 
ing the church relations of the children of church- 
members. Disconnected with those other doctrines, 



108 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

it sinks into insignificance, and is comparatively un- 
important. Connected with them, and sustained by 
them, it assumes an importance, scarcely, if at all, 
inferior to that of adult baptism. 



First argument in favor of the Church-membershijj 
of Infants. 

$55. One of the affiliated doctrines connected 
with infant baptism, and one on which the adminis- 
tration of baptism to infants mainly depends, is the 
doctrine of the church-membership of infant chil- 
dren in consequence of their position in the families of 
church-members. The principle of admitting chil- 
dren to the church, on account of their position in 
pious families, was established in the time of Abra- 
ham. This usage was probably of patriarchal origin, 
and for aught that appears, is as old as the church 
itself. Long before the time of Abraham, the 
church of God was propagated from generation to 
generation, in the line of family descents, and the 
sons of God appear to have been made so, by paren- 
tal discipline. Gen. 5 : 21-32 6:2; The line of de- 
scent from Seth, was the line of the Antediluvian 
patriarchs; and, apparently, of the Antediluvian 
saints. 

But whether instituted before or not, in the time 
of Abraham, the church-membership of the children 
of pious parents, was clearly and explicitly establish- 
ed. Of this, the circumcision of infants was a seal. 
The principle of the membership of infants, in the 
church of God, was incorporated into the Mosaic 
dispensation, and its divinely appointed seal adopted. 
Before the Mosaic dispensation was closed, that of 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 109 

Christ commenced. For a time, that is, during the 
public ministry of Christ and till the abrogation of 
the Jewish rites at the time of the conversion of 
Cornelius, both dispensations were contemporaneous. 
The Jewish converts were, at the same time, both 
Jews and Christians. They observed all the institu- 
tions of Moses, and also, the additional institutions 
of Christ. 

The Christian church was, at this time, a division 
of the Jewish. The same persons were members of 
both. Till the divine communications made to Pe- 
ter, at the time of the conversion of Cornelius, the 
apostles seem not to have had the least idea of the 
abrogation of the Mosaic rites. Up to this time, the 
Christian church was a reformed branch of the Jew- 
ish, embracing all the essential features and princi- 
ples of Judaism. The church-membership of infants, 
being a feature of Judaism, established by divine 
authority, must have been retained. To suppose its 
abrogation, in the absence of the least vestige of 
evidence to sustain such a supposition, is absurd. 

In the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, and the 
abrogation of the sacrifices, circumcision, and other 
Mosaic and patriarchal rites, nothing is said of the 
principle of the membership of children in the 
church. This principle, and the usage founded on 
it, cannot be abrogated and abolished, without being 
mentioned or alluded to, They are, therefore, still 
in force, and belong to the christian church as legiti- 
mately, as they did to the Jewish. 

That part of the Jewish church which received 
Jesus Christ, became a Christian church without 
ceasing to be a part of the Jewish church, and with- 
out abandoning any of the legitimate principles of 
Judaism. They did not at first and for some years, 



110 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

that is, till the conversion of Cornelius, omit any of 
the Jewish rites. This branch of the Jewish church 
came off from the other. They, of course, took off 
their children with them. Not to have done so, 
would have been contrary to one of the essential 
principles of Judaism, and contrary to every dictate 
of humanity and piety. 

The Christian church in its first establishment, 
during the life of Christ, was, simply, a sect of Jews, 
and a reformed branch of the Jewish church. As 
such, it continued to adhere to all the divinely ap- 
pointed Jewish ceremonies. When the unbelieving 
and anti-Christian part of the Jewish church was re- 
jected, and became utterly reprobate, the Christian 
part continued to be the same body, essentially, as it 
had been before; its essential principles being un- 
changed, but certain Mosaic and patriarchal rites 
being laid aside. This church, therefore, is but a 
continuation of the Jewish church in a different 
form and with a more simple religious service, found- 
ed on the same principles and for the same objects. 
It is built on the foundation of the patriachs and 
prophets, as well as on that of the apostles. 

Before its change from the Jewish to the Christian 
organization, the church consisted of adults and their 
children. When the Christian organization was com- 
pleted, and the Jewish not dissolved, as was the 
case after the resurrection, till the time of the con- 
version of Cornelius, a period of some years, infants 
were still included by virtue of the Jewish organiza- 
tion. The abrogation of the Mosaic and patriarchal 
rites, which followed at the time of the conversion of 
Cornelius, did not affect the relations of children. 
Therefore, those relations continue to be the same 
as before, and the membership of infants in the 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. Ill 

church, is as legitimate a principle of Christianity, 
as it was of Judaism. 

The principle of the membership of children in the 
church of God, established in the time of Abraham, 
was incorporated in the Mosaic dispensation, and no 
change in respect to it being revealed or intimated 
in the New Testament, must be concluded to have 
passed into the Christian church, and to have become 
incorporated in the Christian dispensation. 

This principle having been established by divine 
authority, must continue till it is revoked by the 
same. 

It appears, therefore, that the children of church- 
members are entitled to be received as church- 
members, and that all children who belong to pious 
families are, in consequence of their position in 
those families, entitled to share the enjoyment of 
this privilege with the children of pious parents, as 
under the former dispensations. 



Second argument in favor of Church Membership 
of Infants. 

§58. The scriptural authority of the church 
membership of infants, may be proved more directly 
by the explicit declarations of Christ. Math. 19: 
13, 15. "Then were there brought to him little 
children, that he should put his hands on them and 
pray; and the disciples rebuked them: but Jesus 
said, suffer the little children and forbid them not to 
come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." 

The narration of this transaction, occurs almost in 
the same words, in Mark 10: 13, 16; and in Luke 
18: 15, 17. Luke denominates the children brought 



112 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

to Christ, infants ; and Mark says, in addition to what 
is said by the other evangelists, that "Jesus took them 
in his arms and blessed them. ,r 

Why the disciples rebuked persons for bringing 
children to Christ on this occasion, we are not in- 
formed. Perhaps it subjected them to some incon- 
venience, or interfered with some favorite arrange- 
ments for business or pleasure. Possibly they 
thought the matter of too little consequence to oc- 
cupy their time, and that of their master, and to de- 
tain them from other engagements. Whatever their 
reasons were for finding fault on this occasion, with 
the bringing of children to Christ for his blessing, 
they were not sustained by the Divine Saviour. He 
viewed their conduct in relation to this matter, with 
deep displeasure, and required them in future to ab- 
stain entirely from making opposition in any case to 
the bringing of children to him. Mark 10: 14. 

The phrase, suffer little children to come to me 
and forbid them not, is more than usually energetic. 
It expresses an injunction both positively and nega- 
tively. Suffer them to come, is a positive injunction ;. 
and forbid them not to come, is the same injunction 
expressed negatively. The whole expression is 
equivalent to saying, suffer little children by all 
means to come to me for my blessing, and on no ac- 
count prevent or hinder their coming. 

Some have endeavored to elude the force of this, 
by saying, that it described children of sufficient age 
to come of their own accord, not such as might be 
brought. Such an evasion savors more of puerile 
trifling, than of serious and intelligent reasoning. 

The nature of the coming referred to, is clearly 
explained by the context. It was such a coming as 
was practiced by the children brought to the Savior 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 113 

on that occasion; the coming of infants, the coming 
of such as could appropriately be taken in the arms 
to receive a blessing. To come to Christ in this 
sense, is the same as to be brought to him. This the 
Saviour commands the disciples to suffer and by no 
means to oppose. 

The reason assigned for suffering children to come 
to Christ for his blessing, is expressed in the follow- 
ing words : " For of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
The antecedent of the relative word such, is children. 
Such, therefore, denotes children in the present case • 
and putting children in the place of the word such, 
which denotes them; the whole passage reads thus: 
Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid 
them not, for of children is the kingdom of heaven. 

To say that children are of the kingdom of heaven^ 
is the same as to say, that they belong to it. To 
evade this conclusion, some have proposed to inter- 
pret such not as denoting children, but adult persons 
resembling children, or of a child-like simplicity and 
humility. This interpretation cannot be admitted^ 
for the following reasons. 

1. The antecedent word to which such relates, and 
for which it stands, is children, not persons resem- 
bling children. The meaning of such depends upon 
the word for which it stands, and is determined by 
that word. If it stood for persons resembling chil- 
dren, and related to words denoting such persons as 
its antecedent, it would denote them, but standing as 
it does for the word children, and relating to that 
word as its antecedent, it denotes children. 

2. The relation predicated of the persons deno- 
ted by the word such, is assigned as a reason for 
suffering children to come to Christ. That which 
is a reason for suffering children to come to Christ f 



114 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

must pertain to children, not merely to adults of a 
child-like disposition. Therefore, such, the subject 
of this proposition, must refer to children, otherwise 
the reasoning of the Saviour is inconclusive. The 
interest of child-like adults in the kingdom of 
heaven, is no reason whatever for suffering children 
to come to Christ. It is only a reason for suffering 
child-like adults to come to him. 

Of such is the kingdom of heaven, therefore, 
means of children is the kingdom of heaven ; that is, 
that children as well as adults, are subjects of the 
kingdom of heaven. 

But what is the kingdom of heaven, as the phrase 
is generally used in the gospels? I answer it is the 
Christian church. In proof of this, the following 
passages may be adduced. Matt. 3: 2. "Repent 
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So Matt. 4 : 
17, 10: 7. Matt. 13: 24. "The kingdom of 
heaven is like a man sowing good seed in his field." 
See also, verses 31, 33, 44, 45, 47. The phrase 
kingdom of God, is used as synonymous with king- 
dom of heaven. Mark 1: 14, 15. "Now after 
John was put in prison, Jesus came into Gallilee, 
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and 
saying, the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God 
is at hand ; repent ye ancU)elieve the gospel." 

Luke 4: 43. "And he said to them, I must 
preach the kingdom of God to other cities also." — 
Luke 6 : 20. " And he lifted up his eyes on his dis- 
ciples, and said blessed be ye poor, for yours is the 
kingdom of God." Acts 19: 8. "And entering 
into a synagogue he spake boldly for the space of 
three months, disputing and persuading the things 
concerning the kingdom of God." Acts 28 : 30, 31. 
" Paul dwelt two years in his own hired house, and 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 115 

received all that came to him, preaching the king- 
dom of God, and teaching those things which con- 
cern the Lord Jesus, with all confidence, no man 
forbidding him." 

The church of God is his kingdom on earth. 
God is its king, gives it laws, establishes its offices 
and ordinances, and administers, by means of those 
offices and in modes of his appointment, its govern- 
ment. It is a spiritual kingdom not established for 
secular purposes, but for religious purposes. 

Of this spiritual kingdom infants are subjects. 
This is equivalent to saying that infants are members 
of the church of Christ. We have, then, the doc- 
trine of infant membership in the church of Christ, 
explicitly asserted by Christ himself, and asserted 
as a reason why infants should be brought to him for 
his blessing. 

The phrase, kingdom of heaven, is interpreted by 
some, as referring to the kingdom of glory, and not 
to the church of Christ on earth. This interpreta- 
tion is objectionable, on the following grounds: 

1. Kingdom of heaven having become a common 
title of the Christian church, ought throughout the 
evangelical history, to be interpeted in that sense, 
unless in cases where the context will not admit of 
this interpretation. 

2. The participation of infants in the kingdom of 
Christ on earth, is a more direct reason for the con- 
duct enjoined, than their participation in the fellow- 
ship of his kingdom above. When two interpreta- 
tions are admissable, that which assigns a reason 
most to the point, other things being equal, is always 
to be preferred. Therefore, the interpretation of 
kingdom of heaven to denote the kingdom or church 
of Christ on earth, is in this case to be adopted. 



116 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

Third argument in favor of the Church Membership 
of Infants, 

{57. A third argument in favor of the member- 
ship of infants in the Christian church, may be de- 
duced from Rom. 11: 16, 17. "For if the first 
fruit be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root 
be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the 
branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive- 
tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them par- 
takest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, boast 
not against the branches." 

In this passage, the church of God is compared to 
an olive-tree. The olive-tree previous to the break- 
ing off of some of its branches, was the Jewish 
church before the rejection of the greater part of that 
nation on account of their unbelief. The tree was 
not destroyed, but only some of its branches broken 
off. This shows that the church was not dissolved, 
but passed unchanged from the Mosaic to the Chris- 
tian dispensation ; as it had previously done from the 
Patriarchal to the Mosaic dispensation. 

Some of the branches were not broken off. The 
believing part of the Jewish church continued in their 
primitive church relations, and were the Jewish 
church modified by the omission of certain specified 
Mosaic rites, and the introduction of certain speci- 
fied Christian rites. 

The grafting in of branches from the wild olive- 
tree, denotes the admission of Gentiles to the church 
of God to partake of the genial influence of church 
principles and institutions, without having been pre- 
viously proselyted to Judaism. 

The Jewish church thus modified, by the excision 
of a part only of its branches, and the grafting in of 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 117 

others to occupy their place, and by the omission of 
certain Jewish rites and the adoption of certain 
Christian rites, is the Christian church of succeeding 
times. 

The roots and trunk and a part of the branches of 
this church-tree are the same as formerly. This de- 
notes the essential unity of the Jewish and Christian 
churches. They are of one stock, and are one con- 
tinuous body. 

It is not true, as some have supposed, that the 
Jewish church was a secular establishment, and that 
the Christian church is a spiritual one. Both are 
spiritual. Both are alike in this respect, because 
one is a continuation of the other. 

Judaism, as it existed previously to the establish- 
ment of Christianity, and as it was constituted by di- 
vine authority, is to be distinguished from that Juda- 
ism, which the apostles subsequently condemned as 
involving the doctrine of justification on the ground 
of meritorious obedience, and as at the time consist- 
ing in uncommanded and therefore useless ceremo- 
nies. 

The Judaism of the accepted patriarchs and proph- 
ets was one thing, that of the rejected Jews was an- 
other. The former was in essential agreement with 
Christianity; the latter was in irreconcile able oppo- 
sition to it. The former was spiritual ; the latter 
carnal. 

It appears, on the whole, therefore, that the repre- 
sentation of the church under the emblem of a tree, 
and that of the excision of the unbelieving Jews, by 
the excision of some branches of this tree, while the 
others remain, clearly proves the identity of the Jew- 
ish and Christian churches. Hence it follows that the 



118 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

membership of infants, which prevailed in the Jewish 
church, must be considered as continuing in the 
Christian church. 

Fourth argument in favor of the Church Membership 
of Infants, 

$58. A fourth argument in favor of the church 
membership of children, is drawn from the applica- 
tion of the titles of church members to denote them 
in the scriptures. 

The titles of church members are saints or holy 
persons, and faithfuls. The latter is in some cases 
improperly translated believers. Both these terms 
are applied in the new testament to denote children. 

§ 59. (1.) Children of church members are called 
saints, or holy persons. 1 Cor. 7 : 14. " For the 
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing 
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband, else were your children unclean, but now 
are they holy." 

This passage occurs as an argument to prove that 
married church members may lawfully live with un- 
christian companions. The established rule on the 
subject of matrimonial relations among the Jews 
was the opposite of this. The Jew might not live 
with a heathen companion. Hence, in the time of 
Ezra, connections of this kind were forcibly dissolved 
by the authority and influence of that prophet. See 
Ezra 10: 1-17. 

Under the Christian dispensation, a milder law 
prevails. A holy husband makes the wife so far holy 
as that it is lawful for him to live with her as a com- 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 1 19 

panion; and a holy wife makes the husband so far 
holy, that it is lawful for her to live with him. This 
representation is founded on the Jewish law of de- 
filement. A defiled object rendered all objects 
v/hich came in contact with it defiled. So, under 
the Christian dispensation, a Christian companion 
rendered an unchristian one holy, in a legal sense, 
as under the former dispensation, a defiled object 
rendered a clean one defiled. The defilement thus 
created under the Mosaic dispensation was entirely 
ceremonial. So the sanctification effected by the 
Christian companion is only ceremonial or figurative, 
and is the basis of lawful companionship. This lan- 
guage is used with reference to the disability created 
by impiety for lawful companionship with the saints 
under the former dispensation. It signifies only the 
removal of that disability. The removal of all dis- 
abilities for companionship with Christians on the 
part of persons who are not Christians, is fully settled 
by a reference to the position of the children of such 
connections. 

If such connections had not been lawful, and the 
unchristian companion had been accounted unclean, 
that is, unfit for Christian companionship, the chil- 
dren, as under the former dispensation, would also 
have been accounted unclean. In the case of the 
Israelites, the children of mixed marriages were re- 
quired to be excluded from any participation in Jew- 
ish church privileges equally with their heathen 
parents. Ezra 10: 3. 

Under the Christian dispensation, the apostle in- 
forms us that such children are holy. He mentions 
it not as something that was new to his Corinthian 
brethren, but as something which was well known? 



120 CHTJRCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

and could therefore be made use of to illustrate less 
obvious truths. 

According to the Mosaic law, the people of God 
were the clean or holy, and all others were the un- 
clean. Hence it is said, Isa. 52 : 1, "Awake ! awake ! 
put on thy strength, O Zion! Put on thy beautiful 
garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city ; for henceforth 
there shall no more come into thee the uncircum- 
cised and the unclean? Ezek. 44: 23; "They (the 
priests and Levites,) shall teach my people the dif- 
ference between the lioly and profane, and cause 
them to discern between the unclean and the clean? 
The clean and unclean, in these passages, are titles 
of the pious and wicked. Clean is extensively used 
in the sense of holy, as in Job 11: 4; 15: 14; 33: 
9. Isa. 52: 11. Jer. 13: 27. Ezek. 36. 25. 

A similar usage prevails in the New Testament. 
Holy, commonly translated saint, is applied exten- 
sively, in the New Testament, a sa title of members 
in the church of Christ. Of this, the following pas- 
sages are examples : 

Acts 26 : 10, " And many of the saints did I 
shut up in prison, having received authority from the 
chief priests." Rom. 15 : 25 ; " But now I go to 
Jerusalem to minister to the saints? 2 Cor. 1:1; 
-"To the church of God, which is at Corinth, with 
all the saints which are in all Achaia." Eph. 1:1; 
u To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the 
faithfuls in Christ Jesus." Phil. 1 : 1 ; " To all the 
saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons." 

If children, where either of the parents is a church 
member, are not unclean but holy, this must be un- 
derstood according to the meaning of the terms un- 
clean and holy, taken in connection with the nature 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OP CHILDREN 121 

of the subjects to which they are applied. Accord- 
ing to the meaning of the terms unclean and holy, it 
must refer to the separation of such children from 
the children of unbelievers, and their consecration 
to God. According to the nature of the subjects 
spoken of, which are children, not adult persons, it 
must denote a separation of such children solely on 
account of their position in Christian families. 

This was analogous to what occurred under the 
Mosaic dispensation, and proves an agreement of the 
Mosaic and Christian dispensations in having the 
children of believers included among the acknow- 
ledged and professed people of God. 

If children were reckoned as church members, 
then they were not unclean but holy. If they were 
not reckoned as church members, they were unclean 
in the same sense in which the gentiles were, and, 
in this respect, were not distinguishable from them. 

Unbelieving companions were sanctified legally, 
in a figurative sense, so that church members might 
lawfully continue in connection with them ; and this 
is commended to our faith by the consideration that, 
if it were not so, our children would be unclean, 
whereas they are known to be holy. That is, if this 
were not so, our children would have to be reckoned 
as of the same unsanctified body with the heathen, 
whereas they are now reckoned as belonging to the 
church of God, and as being so far the subjects of 
ceremonial holiness. 

There is no other sense in which the children of 
church members can be accounted holy, except as 
fit candidates for admission to the Christian church- 
Their ceremonial holiness, therefore, is an evidence 
of their title to church membership, and their title 
9 



122 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

to church membership lays a foundation for their 
baptism. 

§ 60. (2.) Children of church members are called 
faithful. The term faithful is a title frequently ap- 
plied to Christians in the New Testament. It is 
sometimes improperly translated believers. The fol- 
lowing are some of the instances in which it occurs : 
Acts 16:1; " The son of a certain woman, who was 
a Jewess and a faithful" that is, a Christian. 2 
Cor. 6: 15; " What part hath a faithful with an un- 
faithful." 1 Tim. f : 16; "If any faithful [man] or 
faithful [woman] have widows, let such relieve 
them." 1 Tim. 4 : 12 ; " Be thou an example to the 
faithfuls, in word, in conversation, in charity, in 
spirit, in faith, in purity." Eph. 1 : 1 ; " To the faith- 
fuls in Christ Jesus." 

In the above, and many similar passages of scrip- 
ture, faithful and faithfuls denote Christians or 
church members. Being a title of church members, 
the application of this term to children by the apos- 
tle is an evidence that they were church members. 

An appKcation is made of it to children in Titus 
1 : 6, in describing the qualifications for the office of 
Presbyter or Bishop. "If any be blameless, the 
husband of one wife, having faithful children." 

In what sense is having faithful children a qualifi- 
cation for the office of bishop? It may be taken in 
the sense of obedient children, as it is said in a 
parallel passage, 1 Tim. 3:4, " One that ruleth his 
own family well, having his children in subjection 
with all gravity." 

It may also refer to children as made Christians, 
that is, baptized, and thus admitted to the com- 
munion of the saints ; and this is in agreement with 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 123 

the general usage of the word in the New Testa- 
ment. 

A similar usage prevailed among the early Chris- 
tians, as appears from ancient inscriptions. The 
following are some examples of these : " Cyreacus, 
a faithful, died eight days less than three years old. 
HI Kal. Mar." Muratori. " The mother, Eustasia, 
places this [stone] in commemoration of her son, 
Policitanio, a faithful, who lived three years." 
Gruter, No. 8. " Uncia Florentina, a, faithful, rests 
here in peace. She lived five years, eight months, 
and eight days. Muratori." 

Paul informs Titus that a Presbyter or bishop must 
have faithful children. The term faithful is a title of 
professing Christians in the New Testament, and 
was applied to denote baptized children by the an- 
cient Christians. Whence we infer, that, in the 
apostolic direction to Titus, faithful children means 
baptized children; and that no person was allowed to 
be made a presbyter or bishop who did not have his 
children baptized, and bring them up in a religious 
manner. 



Fifth argument in favor of the church-membership 
of Infants. 

5 61. It was predicted that Christ, under the 
Christian dispensation, should regard and treat chil- 
dren as lambs of his flock. 

Isa. 40: 11, "He shall feed his flock like a shep- 
herd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm and 
carry them in his bosom." Christ alludes to this pre- 
diction, in John 10: 11-18, and declares, ct I am the 
good shepherd." He also says, alluding to his Jew- 



124 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

ish disciples, " Other sheep I have, which are not of 
this fold. Them, also, I must bring; they shall hear 
my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shep- 
herd." 

In the comparison of the church to a sheep-fold, 
the sheep represent adult Christians, and the lambs 
their infant children. Taking the lambs with the 
arm and carrying them in the bosom, denotes taking 
the children of the church in the arm, and carrying 
them in the bosom. 

If adult converts may, in some cases, not inappro- 
priately be called the lambs of Christ's flock; this 
does not prove, that children are not equally entitled 
to be comprehended under that designation. The 
lambs of Christ's flock, may comprehend adult con- 
verts; but they must comprehend the infant children 
of church-members. 

In all periods preceding the establishment of the 
Christian church, pious adults were regarded as the 
sheep of Christ's fold, and their children as the 
lambs. A prediction in regard to the lambs, when 
these lambs denoted, beyond all question, the chil- 
dren of the saints, must be interpreted agreeably to 
that usage, as denoting them too. 

It is clear then that, under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, Christ was to take children with his , arm, and 
carry them in his bosom, as the lambs of his flock. 
This is done by the baptism of children, and their 
recognition as members of the church of Christ. 
Where children are not baptized, and not recognized 
as members of the church of Christ, this is not done. 
They cannot be taken in the arms of Christ as lambs 
of his flock, without being recognized as a part of 
that flock. 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF INFANTS. 125 

The opposers of infant baptism, discard their own 
children as not being lambs of the flock of Christ, 
and not being fit to be taken up and cherished as 
such. How contrary is this to the prediction : " He 
shall feed his flock like a shepherd. He shall gath- 
er the lambs with his arm and carry them in his 
bosom." 



Sixth argument in favor of the Church-membership 
of Infants. 

\ 62. Eph. 2 : 1 1-12, " Wherefore remember, that 
ye being in time r past Gentiles in the flesh, who are 
called uncircumcision by that which is called circum- 
cision in the flesh made with hands ; that at that time 
ye were without Christ, being aliens from the com- 
monwealth of Israel and strangers from the cove- 
nants of promise, having no hope, and without God 
in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who 
sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood 
of Christ." 

V. 19. "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers 
and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints 
and of the household of God." 

In the above declaration of the apostle, the com- 
monwealth, of Israel, with its covenants of promise, 
denotes the Jewish church. 

Members of the Christian church, are described as 
being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow 
citizens with the saints and of the household of 
God. 

From this it clearly appears that, in the estimation 
of the apostle, the Jewish commonwealth was, for the 
time being, the family or church of God, and that 



126 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 

the Christian church is a continuation of this family, 
so that those who are received into it, are fellow cit- 
izens with the saints of the former dispensation. 

In being called fellow-citizens, the church is com- 
pared to a state. The Jewish and Christian saints 
are described as fellow citizens, that is, as members 
of one and the same state. But if the Jewish and 
Christian churches are one and the same state, so 
that Christians are fellow citizens with the Jews of 
the former dispensation, then Judaism and Christi- 
anity are, essentially, the same system ; and all the 
essential principles of Judaism, are principles of 
Christianity. It was one essential principle of Juda- 
ism, that children should be included, with their pa- 
rents, as subjects of religious rites. The same, 
therefore, is a legitimate principle of Christianity. 

The church-membership of children is established 
by six independent arguments. 

§63. Each of these arguments is independent of 
the others, and each, consequently, must stand or 
fall by itself. The first three will be easily under- 
stood, and their conclusiveness easily perceived by 
candid readers. 

It may be questioned whether the fourth is con- 
clusive. Explanations may be put upon the promi- 
ses of that argument, which do not require the 
hypothesis of the church-membership of children. 
The evidence which they afford, therefore, is of the 
probable, not of the demonstrative kind. But the 
probability which they establish is of very considera- 
ble strength. It depends upon laws of interpreta- 
tion which are so general, and upon facts and prin- 
ciples which are so obvious and indisputable, that 
the conclusion based upon it, particularly with res- 



CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 127 

pect to the application of the word holy, falls little 
short of being certain. That conclusion is not only 
probable, but probable in the highest degree, and, 
therefore, if it was unsustained by the three prece- 
ding arguments, would be a legitimate principle of 
action, and a valid reason for admitting children to 
be members of the Christian church. 

It appears on the whole, therefore, that infants, 
belonging to the families of church-members, are 
entitled to be admitted to the Christian church. 
This conclusion is supported by evidence of the 
most decisive character. There is no counter evi- 
dence. There is nothing in the scriptures inconsis- 
tent with it. The objection that infants are not 
mentioned as church-members, and not particularly 
treated as such in the New Testament, amounts to 
nothing. God may not have taken our own favorite 
modes of acquainting us with this feature of Christi- 
anity, but he has furnished us with other means of 
ascertaining it; which, if properly improved, will 
conduct us to the most certain conclusion on the 
subject. 

The title of infants to church-membership, com- 
prehends their title to Christian baptism, because 
baptism is the rite of initiation into the church. 

Children, therefore, being entitled to church-mem- 
bership, are entitled to receive baptism, the rite of 
initiation into the church, and the seal of church- 
membership. 



128 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 



CHAPTER IX. 

ANALOGY OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM TO 
CIRCUMCISION. 

Second argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

§ 64. Christian baptism is analogous to circumci- 
sion. 

Nature of Circumcision. 

1. Circumcision was, formerly, enjoined upon all 
the true worshippers of GocL with the exception of 
females, who were incapable of receiving it, as a 
seal of justification by faith. Hence it is said, Rom. 
4: 11, 12, "And he (Abraham,) received the sign 
of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, 
[which he obtained] in uncircumcision, that he might 
be the father of all them that believe in circumci- 
sion, that righteousness might be imputed to them 
also ; and the father of the uncircumcision, not to those 
of the circumcision only, but to those who walk in 
the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which 
he had in uncircumcision." 

The righteousness of faith is the same as justify 
cation by faith. Circumcision, therefore, in being 
to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, was 
to him a seal of justification by faith. And if it 
was a seal of justification by faith in the case of 
Abraham, it was a seal of the same thing in the case 
of all others to whom it was lawfully applied. Con- 
sidered as a seal, it did not confirm one thing to 



TO CIRCUMCISION. 129 

Abraham and another and different thing to others,, 
but sealed one and the same thing to all. It was T 
therefore, a seal of justification by faith, when ap- 
plied to infants, as much as when applied to Abra- 
ham. 

565. 2. Circumcision was a symbol of moral 
cleansing. Hence, in Deut. 10: 16, it is said, "Cir- 
cumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be 
no more stiff-necked. Deut. 30 : 6 ? " And the Lord 
thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of 
thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart 
and with all thy soul, that thou may est live." 

Jer. 4: 4, "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord 
and take away the foreskin of your heart, ye men of 
Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem." Acts 7: 51, 
"Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and 
ears, ye do always resist to Holy Ghost: as your 
fathers did, so do ye." Rom. 2 : 28, 29, " For he is 
not a Jew, who is one outwardly ; neither is that cir- 
cumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is 
a Jew, who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that 
of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose 
praise is not of men, but of God." 

In these passages, the significancy of circumcision 
as a symbol of moral cleansing, is most clearly set 
forth. To circumcise the heart means, to cleanse 
the heart. The cleansing of the heart is, moral 
cleansing. Circumcision, therefore, is evidently a 
symbol of moral cleansing. 

566. 3. Circumcision was a rite of initiation into 
the Patriarchal and Mosaic churches. 

When the infant, eight days old, was circumcised, 
it was initiated into the then existing church of God ? 



130 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 

and recognized as a member of that church. So in 
the case of adults, who were converted to the Abra- 
hamic and Mosaic faith. They were initiated into 
the ancient church, by circumcision; and circumci- 
sion when administered was, in the case of males, a 
seal of their membership. 

5 67. 4. Circumcision was a seal of the covenant 
relations subsisting between God and his people, 
and in being a seal of those relations, it was a seal 
of all the blessings promised by God in his covenant 
with men, and of all the obligations assumed by men 
in their covenant with God. Hence, circumcision, 
at the time of its institution, was expressly declared 
to be a token of the covenant subsisting between 
God and men. Gen. 17: 11. 

The token of a covenant, as the word is here 
used, is the same as a seal of a covenant. 

The circumcision of Abraham, was a seal of God's 
covenant with men, as it subsisted between him and 
Abraham. With others who were circumcised, 
whether lineal descendants of Abraham or not, it was 
a seal of God's covenant with men as it subsisted 
between God and those persons. 

§ 68. In the four particulars which have now been 
specified, circumcision under the Patriarchal and 
Mosaic dispensations, answered the same purposes 
which Christian baptism now answers, and possessed 
the same significancy which Christian baptism now 
possesses. These were all the essential purposes of 
circumcision, and they are all the essential purposes 
of Christian baptism. 

Circumcision was required to be administered to 
infants and young children on the ground of the 



TO CIRCUMCISION. 131 

church-membership of their parents. This require 
merit was insisted upon as of the utmost importance, 
and might, on no account, be neglected. 

In obedience to this law, Abraham circumcised all 
his male children and servants. In obedience to the 
same, circumcision continued to be administered to 
infants, till after the full establishment of the Chris- 
tian Church. Christian baptism was instituted be- 
fore circumcision was abolished. Being similar in 
design and import to circumcision, it must have been 
administered to the same subjects. There is a pro- 
priety in its administration to the same subjects, and 
in the absence of any specific information, relating 
to the subjects of Christian baptism, as comprehend- 
ing or not comprehending infants, we are authorized 
to infer, from the similarity of Christian baptism to 
circumcision in design and significancy, that infants 
were comprehended. 

If baptism performs the same office in the Chris- 
tain church which circumcision performed in the 
Patriarchal and Mosaic churches, the natural infer- 
ence is, that it ought to be administered to the same 
subjects, and on the same conditions. In the ab- 
sence of any specific information, limiting the sub- 
jects of Christian baptism to adults, the inference, 
from its resemblance to circumcision, that it ought 
to be extended to infants, and was extended to them, 
becomes most clear and certain. 

If infants were fit subjects of circumcision former- 
ly, they are fit subjects of baptism now. If there 
was a propriety in their being circumcised formerly, 
there is a propriety in their being baptized now. 
Infant nature has not altered since the days of Abra- 
ham. The essential conditions, liabilities and capac- 
ities of infant children, are the same as formerly. 



132 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 

Their privileges ought not, therefore, to be abridged. 
No higher qualifications are required for baptism, 
than were formerly required for circumcision. In- 
fants had all the requisite qualifications for circum- 
cision; therefore, they have all the requisite qualifi- 
cations for baptism. 

§59. The analogy of Christian baptism to circum- 
cision was believed and taught by the early Christian 
fathers. Justin Martyr, converted 132, A. D., and 
beheaded 164, A. D., writes thus: "We Gentile 
Christians also, who by him, (Christ,) have access to 
God, have not received that circumcision according to 
the flesh, but that circumcision which is spiritual; and 
moreover, for indeed we were sinners, we have re- 
ceived this circumcision in baptism, for the purpose 
of God's mercy, and it is enjoined on all to receive 
it in like manner." 

Chrysostom says: "There was pain and trouble 
in Jewish circumcision, but our circumcision, I mean 
the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain; and 
this for infants as well as men." Horn, on Gen. 40. 

Hence, also, Fidus, 250, A. D., hesitated to bap- 
tise infants before they were eight days old and 
thought that the Jewish law respecting circumcising 
children at eight days of age ought to be observed 
in respect to the baptism of infants. 

{70. I have thought proper to base the argument 
from circumcision, in favor of infant baptism upon 
the analogy of baptism to circumcision. Some have 
chosen to base it on a substitution of Christian bap- 
tism for circumcision. The reasoning will then 
stand thus. 

Christian baptism is substituted for circumcision, 
as a seal of covenant relations to God, and of church 



TO CIRCUMCISION. 133 

membership. Circumcision was administered to in- 
fants belonging to pious families; therefore, Christian 
baptism ought to be administered to infants in like 
circumstances. 

The conclusion of this argument is a legitimate 
deduction from the premises, and if the entire argu- 
ment is in any respect defective, that defect must 
pertain to the promise in which it is asserted, that 
Christian baptism is substituted for circumcision. 

It is denied by some, that Christian baptism is sub- 
stituted for circumcision, on the ground that this rite 
was instituted before circumcision was abrogated. — 
How, says the objector, can one ordinance be substi- 
tuted for another, when it is instituted before that 
other is abrogated? As long as circumcision con- 
tinued to be in use, no co-existing rite could be a 
substitute for it. This objection is valid only for the 
time which followed the institution of Christian bap- 
tism, and preceded the abrogation of circumcision. 
Two ordinances of similar import and design, estab- 
lished at different times, may be observed together 
for an indefinite period, and then the one last adopted 
may supplant the other, and become a legitimate sub- 
stitute for it. 

So it was with circumcision and baptism. They 
were instituted at different times, and were ordinan- 
ces of similar import and design. For a few years 
they were observed together, but after a while cir- 
cumcision was abrogated, and Christian baptism 
thenceforward was used alone for the same purposes 
as before, and for the same purposes essentially for 
which circumcision had been used from the days of 
Abraham till the conversion of Cornelius. 

Considered as a rite of initiation into the church 
of God, and as a seal of covenant relations and obli- 



134 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM, ETC. 

gations between God and man; therefore Christian 
baptism is a substitute for Christian circumcision. It 
became so at the time when circumcision was abro- 
gated. Previous to that time, it was a concomitant 
seal, used for the same purposes essentially as cir- 
cumcision, but serving to distinguish the Christian 
Jew from the unchristian Jew. This use of Chris- 
tian baptism arose from the fact that the Jewish 
church had, to a considerable extent, abandoned the 
legitimate principles of Judaism, and that it became 
expedient to separate the spiritual Jews from the un- 
spiritual, or the true Jews from the false. 

The substitution of Christian baptism for circum- 
cision considered as a seal of covenant relations and 
obligations, is extremely obvious. At first, circum- 
cision was practiced alone as a seal of the covenant 
subsisting between God and man. Then from the 
commencement of the public ministry of Christ, till 
the conversion of Cornelius, they were practiced to- 
gether as joint seals of this covenant,- and after the 
conversion of Cornelius, Christian baptism was prac- 
ticed alone as a seal of the same covenant. 

God's gracious covenant with man was one per- 
manent arrangement entered into and sealed at the 
time of Abraham. This arrangement still exists, 
with baptism substituted for circumcision; that is, 
with circumcision its first seal abrogated, and baptism 
substituted in its place. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 135 



CHAPTER X. 

PERPETUITY OF THE ABRAHAMIC 
COVENANT. 

Third argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

571. The Abrahamic covenant continues in full 
force. God appeared to Abraham and granted him 
on several occasions great and precious promises. — 
These promises were renewed, and the relations of 
God to Abraham were reduced to the form of a sol- 
emn religious covenant on the occasion referred to 
in Gen. 17. This covenant consists of certain prom- 
ises and requirements, to which Abraham gives his 
assent, by submitting to a religious rite affixed as a 
seal of the arrangement. 

The promises are briefly comprehended in this; 
v. 7. " I will establish my covenant between me and 
thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, 
for an everlasting covenant; to be a God to thee and 
to thy seed after thee.'" 

Other promises and specifications may all be con- 
sidered as comprehended in this. That God should 
be a God to us and to our descendants after us, is all 
that we need, and all that we can desire. This is 
the tenor of the covenant with Abraham. The lead- 
ing terms of this covenant are suited to the condition 
of mankind in all ages and countries. Some specir 
fications were added which pertain to the particular 
descendants of Abraham, and to their destination 
under the former dispensation. But in respect to its 
spiritual provisions, and in respect to temporal bless- 



136 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, 

ings generally, it is equally suited to the condition of 
all men, at all times, and under all dispensations of 
grace. 

This covenant was the basis of the Mosaic dispen- 
sation. When the Mosaic rites were disused it 
remained unrevoked. 

The Mosaic rites were no part of the Abrahamic 
covenant. 

Paul puts forth an elaborate argument in favor of 
this position, in the third chapter of Galatians. He 
informs us that they who are of faith are the children 
of Abraham; v. 7, That Christ has redeemed us 
from the curse of the law; that the blessing of Abra- 
ham might come on the gentiles through Jesus 
Christ; v. 13, 14. That this covenant was not dis- 
annulled or superseded by the law; v. 17. That we 
are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ ; 
v. 26 ; and that, if we are Christ's, then we are Abra- 
ham's seed and heirs, according to the promise; 
v. 29. 

A more explicit evidence of the perpetuity of the 
Abrahamic covenant could not be given. Not only 
an apostolic assertion, but an apostolic argument 
is put on record in its support 

Here then we have a perpetual covenant in ac- 
cordance with which God dispenses blessings to 
mankind. This covenant was esteemed infinitely 
precious in former times. It is still precious in the 
view of all who properly understand it 

At the time of its establishment it was a sealed 
arrangement. Circumcision was its seal. This seal 
continued till after the commencement of the Chris- 
tian dispensation. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 137 

5 72. Seals are liable to be altered, and are often 
altered for good and sufficient reasons. After the 
seal of circumcision had been in use more than 
1,900 years, God saw fit to abrogate it, together with 
the Mosaic rites of religious worship. 

Its abrogation did not take place till several years 
after the crucifixion. The first indication which the 
apostles received of its abrogation, was in A. D. 41, 
in connection with the conversion of Cornelius, the 
Roman Centurion. Peter was called upon to asso- 
ciate with Cornelius and his friends, on terms which 
were entirely inconsistent with established Jewish 
usages. Cornelius and his gentile friends appear to 
have been baptized and admitted to the Christian 
church without circumcision, and were the first un- 
circumcised converts of whom we have any account. 

Here then, for the first time, the ancient seal of 
the Abrahamic covenant was omitted by divine au- 
thority. The omission of it, however, did not pass 
without notice. 

On his return to Jerusalem, Peter was called to 
account for his violation of the established and hither- 
to sacred usages of the Jews, in reference to Corne- 
lius and his friends. He explains the whole matter, 
showing that he had done nothing of himself, but 
had acted under the authority and special direction 
of God. His statements were satisfactory. They 
showed the disciples generally what Peter then, for 
the first time, understood, that the Mosaic rites, 
together with circumcision, the ancient seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant, were no longer valid and no 
longer obligatory. Acts 11: 1-18. 

So strong, however, was the attachment of the 
Jewish Christians to the Mosaic rites, that the sub- 
ject was brought up again in a council of the elders 
10 



138 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

and apostles, held at Jerusalem, A. D. 49; eight 
years subsequent to the time when Cornelius was 
converted. 

After a full discussion of the subject in this coun- 
cil, the disuse of the Mosaic rites and circumcision 
was unanimously agreed to, as being in conformity 
with the will of God. The grounds on which the 
decision was made, were the divine communications 
made directly and indirectly to Peter, on the occasion 
of his preaching the gospel to Cornelius, the authori- 
ty and practice of Paul and Barnabas, and prophecies 
relating to the subject, which were recited and ex- 
pounded by James, President of the Council. Acts 
15: 1-29. 

In this manner, circumcision and the Mosaic rites 
of religious worship, comprehending the observance 
of the seventh day of the week as a sabbath, were for- 
mally abrogated. 

The Abrahamic covenant, agreeably to the reason- 
ings of Paul, already adduced, remained in full force. 
All the great principles of the former dispensation 
remained. 

§ 73. The reasons for the great change now re- 
ferred to are, no where in the scriptures, particularly 
explained. It is not the manner of God ; neither 
does it suit the dignity of the Divine Majesty to go 
unnecessarily into explanations of the reasons of his 
procedure. It is proper for us humbly to investigate 
these reasons as far as they may appear, and rever- 
ently to wait for illumination where they do not ap- 
pear. 

Several reasons, however, are obvious, showing a 
propriety both in the discontinuance of circumcision 
and the Mosaic rites. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 139 

The antitype of the Patriarchal and Mosaic sacri- 
fices having come and performed his appropriate work, 
it was fit that there should be a change in those insti- 
tutions, corresponding with the altered light in which 
their antitype was henceforth to be viewed. This 
accounts for the disuse of sacrifices. Other Jewish 
typical ceremonies were intimately associated with 
these, and naturally stood or fell with them. 

The Abrahamic covenant too, had, in addition to 
its general provisions, adapted to all times, its Jewish 
peculiarities, which had now received their accom- 
plishment. An alteration of its seal corresponds to 
the renewed form which that covenant henceforth as- 
sumed, and marked a new era in its administration. 

But the main reason that appears for the disuse of 
the Mosaic rites and of circumcision, was, that the 
unre formed Jewish branch of the church was rejected 
from being any longer a part of the true church ; and 
it was desirable that the reformed branch of it which 
had embraced Christianity should be reorganized in 
a different form, in order to indicate this fact. 

§ 74. But though altered in form, the Christian 
church embraces the true seed of Abraham, and is 
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. 
Hence Peter says, in connection with the injunction 
to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, 
and the assurance that those who did so should re- 
ceive the Holy Spirit, Acts 2 : 39 ; " For the promise 
is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar 
off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 

The Abrahamic covenant, still remaining in force 
in respect to its main provisions, it ought to have a 
seal. If the old seal is disused, it ought to have a 



140 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

new one, to be applied like the old. There is the 
same demand now for a seal to this covenant as for- 
merly. The seal was formerly applied to believing 
adults and their children. The renewed seal ought, 
therefore, to be so applied. Is there any such seal? 
Or has God abrogated the old seal and given us none 
in its place ? If he has given us a new seal, to take 
the place of circumcision, the old one, what is it? 
I answer, it is baptism. Baptism signifies what cir- 
cumcision signified, and seals what circumcision 
sealed. It seals men as the servants of God. Bap- 
tism, therefore, occupies, in the Christian dispensa- 
tion, the place formerly occupied by circumcision, in 
the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. It is, 
therefore, suitable to serve as a seal of the Abrahamic 
covenant in its renewed form ; and in the absence of 
any other seal, must be presumed to be that seal. 

We are not left, however, to inference and analo- 
gy on this subject. We have explicit scriptural tes- 
timony to establish this point. 

Col. 2: 11, 12. "In whom also ye are circum- 
cised with the circumcision made without hands, by 
putting off the sins of the carnal body, by the cir- 
cumcision of Christ, being buried with him by bap- 
tism ." Baptism is here called the circumcision of 
Christ, or Christian circumcision. This must mean 
that baptism is now what circumcision was formerly. 
It cannot mean any thing else. It is, therefore, a 
direct scriptural evidence, that baptism is a seal of 
the same covenant now, of which circumcision was 
the seal formerly. 

$75. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, 
as a fundamental law of the Christian dispensation, 
fBay be proved by an independent argument from 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 141 

Acts 2: 38, 39. " Then Peter said to them, repent 
and be baptized, every one of you, to the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar 
off; even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 

The promise here spoken of must relate to the 
bestowment of the blessings mentioned in the pre- 
ceding verse. These are comprehended under the 
titles of remission of sins and the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. The promise, therefore, must relate to the 
remission of sins, and the sanctifying influences of 
the Holy Ghost ; or, in other words, to bestowing sal- 
vation in the gospel dispensation. 

Thus interpreted, the doctrine of this passage is, 
that in the gospel dispensation, salvation is offered to 
u£ and our children. This doctrine is proposed as a 
reason for repenting and being baptized. Repent 
and be baptized says the apostle, because salvation is 
promised to you, and to your children on these con- 
ditions. The mention of children in this connection 
is remarkable, and deserves to be well considered. 
It is the more worthy of consideration on account of 
its occurring in the first gospel sermon which was 
delivered after the resurrection. 

Soon after this, we have an account of another dis- 
course by the same apostle, and in it a passage simi- 
lar to that above mentioned. Acts 3: 19,20; "Re- 
pent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins 
may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing 
shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he 
shall send Jesus Christ, who before was preached to 
you." V. 25; "Ye are the children of the prophets, 
and of the covenant which God made with our 
fathers, saying to Abraham, and in thy seed shall all 



142 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 1 " Children of 
the prophets may mean descendants of the prophets, 
or disciples of the prophets. The language was ap- 
plicable to the Jews in both senses. They were, to 
some extent, the descendants of the prophets, and 
were generally their disciples. 

Children of the covenant made with their fathers, 
means heirs of that covenant. The covenant made 
with their fathers embraced the promise of the Mes- 
siah, and other spiritual blessings. Their title to the 
blessings promised in that covenant is assigned as a 
reason why they should repent and become Chris- 
tians. One of the most important provisions of the 
covenant referred to was, that God would be a God 
to his servants, and to their children after them. 
Gen. 17: 7. 

Here then, in the preaching of the gospel on the 
day of Pentecost, when many of the hearers were 
foreigners and ignorant of Christian principles, (Acts 
2: 9-11,) and on a subsequent occasion, not far from 
the same time, we have, first, the annunciation that 
the promise of salvation, under the Messiah, is to us 
and our children; and secondly, an appeal made to 
the Jews as heirs of the covenant made by God with 
the patriarchs of the former dispensation; both as- 
signed as reasons for repenting and becoming Chris- 
tians. 

The promise of spiritual blessings in being to us 
and our children, is essentially the same as in the 
Abrahamic covenant, in which it is said : Gem 17 : 7. 
" I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
and thy seed after thee, in their generations; to be a 
God to thee and to thy seed after thee." The prom- 
ise of spiritual blessings in the Abrahamic covenant 
to them and their children after them, was the ground 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 143 

of infant circumcision. The similar promise of spir- 
itual blessings to us and our children, under the gos- 
pel dispensation, is an equally substantial ground for 
infant baptism. 

Under the former dispensations, spiritual blessings 
were dispensed to parents and their children, and in 
conformity to this arrangement, circumcision, the seal 
of God's covenant, was applied to the children of 
God's people. Under the Christian dispensation, the 
promise is, that spiritual blessings shall be dispensed 
to parents and their children, just as formerly. — 
Hence, baptism, the seal of covenant or promised 
spiritual blessings, ought to be applied to the children 
of God's people, as much as to adult converts. 

God's promises in respect to spiritual blessings, 
are his covenant, or his part of the covenant subsist- 
ing between him and his people. God's covenant, 
therefore, so far as children are concerned, is the 
same as it was formerly. It embraces all adult 
Christians and their children. 

The continuance of the Abrahamic covenant, re- 
quires a joint participation of children with their 
parents in Christian baptism, the seal of covenant 
relations to God. 



144 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 



CHAPTER XL 

DESIGNATING THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM BY GENERAL TERMS. 

Fourth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

{76. The terms which describe the subjects of 
Christian baptism in the scriptures comprehend in- 
fants. 

This is the case in respect to John's baptism. — 
It is said, Matt. 3 : 5, 6, that " all Jerusalem and all 
Judea and all the country round about Jordan went 
out to him and were baptized by him at Jordan j" 
and in Mark 1 : 5, that " all the land of Judea, and 
they of Jerusalem, were baptized by him at the river 
Jordan, confessing their sins." 

The terms here made use of to describe the sub- 
jects of John's baptism, are of the most comprehen- 
sive kind. All of a people include infants equally 
with adults. 

The declaration that they were baptized, confess- 
ing their sins, does not militate against the idea that 
infants were included among them. Because, if 
confession of sins was made generally by adults, the 
language made use of by the evangelist would be 
perfectly appropriate, though infants made no con- 
fession. 

The question whether infants were baptized by 
John, is a question of interpretation. The appropri- 
ate answer to it depends on the right interpretation 
of the terms denoting the subjects of his baptism in 
the passages of scripture above referred to* 



BY GENERAL TERMS. 145 

Unless some restriction is put upon those terms, 
they must be interpreted as comprehending infants. 
If they are to be restricted, on what grounds is this 
restriction to be made ? We may not restrict the 
meaning of general terms without reason. Shall 
these terms be restricted to adults on the ground 
that infants are not fit subjects of baptism? That 
assumption is false. Baptism was applied to infants 
from the days of Moses to those of John, and the 
fitness of infants to receive it does not appear ever 
to have been questioned. It is too late, therefore, 
to assume it now. If infants were fit subjects of 
baptism, we infer, that they were comprehended un- 
der the terms made use of by the evangelist to de- 
scribe the subjects of John's baptism; and conse- 
quently, that they participated with their parents in 
the reception of that ordinance. 

If Joints baptism included infants among its sub- 
jects, Christian baptism must have done the same. — 
For they appear to have been kindred institutions. 

{77. Matt. 28 : 19, contains the injunction, "teach 
all nations, baptizing them to the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The word 
them, in this passage, which denotes the subjects of 
baptism, stands for all nations. All nations, there- 
fore, are to be baptized. This term always includes 
infants, unless there is some obvious reason for ex- 
cepting them, either in the predicate or in the context. 

The nature of baptism presents no reason for ex- 
cepting infants, for it was common to baptize them ; 
and the laws of God had required such baptism for 
nearly two thousand years. The context furnishes 
no evidence of their being excepted ; therefore, we 
are authorised to infer that the apostolic commission 



146 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 

to baptize, required them to baptize the infants of 
believing adults equally with their parents. 

Mark 16 : 16, in which it is declared that " he that 
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that 
believeth not shall be damned," proves nothing 
against the interpretation of Matt. 28 : 19 as enjoin- 
ing the baptism of infants. 

In respect to adult persons, faith ought to precede 
being baptized. He that believeth and is baptized, 
is the natural mode of referring to faith and baptism, 
on the supposition that infants were baptized. It 
therefore proves nothing against that supposition. — 
In order to prove any thing against that supposition, 
it ought to be incompatible with it. 

$78. In Acts 16: 14, 15, it is said that " a certain 
woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city 
of Thyatira, who worshiped God, heard [the gospel] 
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to 
the things which were spoken by Paul. And when 
she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
Lord, come into my house and abide there : and she 
constrained us." 

We are here told that Lydia heard the gospel 
preached; that the Lord opened her heart so that 
she attended to the things spoken by Paul ; and then 
that she was baptized and her household, or family. 
It does not appear that her family heard the gospel, 
or believed, but that they were baptized on her ac- 
count. If this family contained infants, they must 
have been baptized, and baptized on Lydia's account. 
The word translated family in its ordinary and proper 
meaning comprehends infants. Unless restricted to 
adults, it must comprehend them here. No such re- 



BY GENERAL TEEMS. 147 

striction is required by the nature of the ordinance 
of baptism, or by the context ; therefore, none is to 
be assumed. 

579. In Acts 16 : 32, 33, it is said that Paul and 
Silas spake the word of the Lord to the Philippian 
jailer and to all that were in his house. "And he 
(the jailer,) took them the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all 
his, straightway." 

After the word his, near the close of this passage, 
family is to be supplied. It appears, therefore, that 
the jailer was baptized and all his family. Whether 
there were infants in his family or not, is not specifi- 
ed. The word family, naturally comprehends infants, 
and we have a right to infer that it is to be interpre- 
ted as comprehending them here, unless they are ex- 
cluded by the nature of the predicate baptized, or 
by the context. The nature of baptism does not 
exclude them. The context does not exclude them. 
An attempt has sometimes been made to exclude 
them by the context because it is said that the apos- 
tle spake the word to all that were in the jailer's 
house, and that the jailer rejoiced, believing in God 
with all his family. 

These modes of expression imply that there were 
adult persons in his family besides himself, to whom 
the word was preached, and that these believed. — 
But they imply nothing against the supposition, that 
his family comprehended infants too. 

{80. In 1. Cor. 1 : 16, Paul says, "I baptized the 
family of Stephanas.'" Of what persons or what de- 
scription of persons this family consisted, we are not 
informed. The term family is of sufficient compre- 



148 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 

hension to embrace infants, and does naturally and 
usually embrace them. 

Family, with us, is used to denote children, either 
inclusive or exclusive of one or both of their parents. 
Thus we speak of a man who has children, as having 
a family, and one who has no children, as having 
no family. When a widow is left with several chil- 
dren, we speak of her as being left with a large fami- 
ly. So persons are spoken of as subjects of family 
sickness, when sickness relating to children is in- 
tended. 

A similar usage prevails in the scriptures, 1 Tim. 
3:4; "One that ruleth his own family well, having 
his children in subjection with all gravity.' ■ V. 12; 
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, 
ruling their children and their own families well.'" 
5 : 14 ; "I will, therefore, that the younger women 
marry, bear children, guide the family." 

The term family, in each of the above passages, 
denotes chiefly children. This is the term made use 
of to describe the subjects of Christian baptism, in 
several passages in the New Testament. Lydia and 
her family, therefore, means Lydia and her children. 
The jailer at Philippi, and his family, means the 
jailer and his children; and the family of Stephanas 
means the children of Stephanas. In these three 
cases, it is expressly said, that the families of parti- 
cular persons were baptized. 

In Acts 11 : 13, 14, the family of Cornelius is men- 
tioned separately from himself, as to participate with 
him in salvation. "Whereby thou and all thy family 
shall be saved." Cornelius and all his family were to 
be saved by means of the preaching of Peter. 

In Acts 18 : 8, we are informed that " Crispus, the 
chief ruler of the Synagogue, believed in the Lord 



BY GENERAL TEEMS. 149 

with all his family ; and many of the Corinthians, 
hearing, believed and were baptized." 

The families of Cornelius and Crispus mean, 
chiefly, the children of those persons. Their ages 
are not specified. Some were probably of sufficient 
age to become believers and be baptized on account 
of their faith; others, for aught that appears, may 
have been infants, which, if baptized at all, must 
have been received as infant saints, or faithfuls, and 
not as adult believers. 

{81. The only account which we have of the 
subjects of Christian baptism in the scriptures, is ex- 
pressed in general terms, such as have been cited 
above. If baptism was not to be restricted to per- 
sons of any age, the use of these terms is an ap- 
propriate and sufficiently distinct and perspicuous 
description of its subjects. But on the supposition 
that it was to be restricted to adults, the terms de- 
scriptive of its subjects in the scriptures are not as 
specific as they should be, in order to withhold us 
from error. 

The scriptures describe the subjects of baptism by 
the use of terms which include infants equally with 
adults. There is no specific restriction of these 
terms to adults, in any single case. Therefore, they 
ought not to be restricted. If we restrict them we 
do it on our own responsibility, and contrary to the 
well established laws of interpretation, as they relate 
to all languages both ancient and modern, 



150 EXCLUSION OF INFANTS 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXCLUSION OF INFANTS 
FROM CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Fifth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

§82. The scriptures do not, in any instance, ex- 
clude infants from a participation with their parents 
in Christian baptism. 

In some cases, not to exclude persons from parti- 
cular privileges, is the same as to include them 
among the subjects of such privileges. This is be- 
lieved to have been the case with respect to infants, 
considered in relation to Christian baptism. Chris- 
tian baptism was introduced in the Mosaic church ; 
Christianity produced a schism in that church; and 
Christian baptism was, from the commencement of 
our Lord's public ministry, administered to all his 
disciples and followers. The Christian part of the 
Jewish church formed one division, and the anti- 
Christian part another. 

In respect to ceremonial institutions, till some 
years after the death of Christ, both divisions were 
similar. The Christian division practiced all the 
Mosaic rites equally with the other. Among these 
were circumcision and the Mosaic baptisms. But, 
in addition to the Mosaic rites, they also practiced 
Christian baptism, as a rite of initiation to their 
ecclesiastical body, and a seal of discipleship 1p 
Christ. 



FROM CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 

An account of the origin of this schism, of the 
organization of the followers of Christ into a separ- 
ate body, and of the initiation of members to this 
body by baptism, is related by the evangelists, with- 
out stating whether infants were initiated with their 
parents, and on the ground of their parents' faith or 
not. Whether they were thus initiated or not, is left 
to be inferred. One or the other inference we are re- 
quired to draw. From the silence of the inspired 
historians respecting them, we must either infer that 
infants were admitted to the Christian division of the 
Jewish church, with their parents, and on their par- 
ents' account, and baptized, or else, that they were 
rejected and left unbaptized. 

We infer that they were admitted, because it was 
in conformity to the usages of the church within 
which the Christian church was formed, to practice 
such admissions. If this usage had been departed 
from in the organization of the Christian church, it 
ought to have been specified in the evangelical his- 
tory. But there is no such specification. The whole 
subject is passed over by the Evangelists in perfect 
silence. 

We are not authorized to suppose the Christian 
division of the Jewish church, at its first organiza- 
tion, to have differed from the other in any points not 
specified. There is no specification of a difference 
in this point j therefore, no difference can be legiti- 
mately inferred. It is a confirmation of this argu- 
ment that the reception or rejection of infants was a 
subject of very great consequence, and pertaining to 
the fundamental principles of church organization. 
If the history of the introduction of baptism, there- 
fore, is so written, that the baptism of infants can be 
legitimately inferred from it, we are fully authorized 



152 EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 

to believe that they were baptized, and that the evan- 
gelical history was designed to teach this. 

The baptism of infants was not only according to 
Jewish usage in respect to circumcision, but it was 
conformable to it in respect to all the Mosaic and 
traditionary baptisms. This usage, in respect to in- 
fants, was not only of divine authority, but was most 
peremptorily enforced. God had not only command- 
ed it, but he had enforced it as an indispensable and 
essential part of those religious ordinances which he 
had seen fit to institute for the benefit of men. 



CHAPTER XIH. 

PROVISION FOR THE EARLY CONVER- 
SION OF CHILDREN. 

Sixth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

§ 83. God has made provision for the early con- 
version and the salvation of children, generally. 

So far as the atonement is concerned, provision is 
made for the salvation of all mankind. But children 
may be brought to avail themselves of it. Hence it 
is said, in Gen. 18: 19, "I know him [Abraham,] 
that he will command his children, and his household 
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, 
to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring 



EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 153 

upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 
Here the effect of Abraham's commanding his chil- 
dren and family, is said to be, that they should keep 
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. 
This comprehends their becoming truly pious. 

Solomon says, Prov. 22 : 6, " Train up a child in 
the way he should go, and when he is old he will not 
depart from it." Paul directs, Eph. 6 : 4, that we 
should bring up our children in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord. 

These passages of scripture, and others, clearly 
imply that children may and ought to be brought up 
to be pious. If it is not possible to train up children 
in the way they should go, what is the propriety of 
the injunction that we should do this? What is the 
propriety of the apostolic injunction to bring them 
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? It 
is possible, then, to train up children, and educate 
them to be truly pious. This possibility exists in 
respect to all children, as far as means are provided 
for the purpose. 

In respect to the children of the church, each 
parent separately, and the church as a body, are 
charged with the responsibility of doing this. 

Just as far as this duty is faithfully performed, we 
see the children of the church converted in child- 
hood. The main hope of the world for the triumph 
of Christianity depends not on the conversion of 
adults by missionary and other evangelical labors^ 
but on the conversion of the children of the church. 
Others can be reached with difficulty. The children 
of the church are under its entire control. Adults 
come into the church subject to many inevitable dis- 
advantages from previous sins, and sinful habits and 
associations. Children, brought in from their infan- 
11 



154 EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 

cy, are not subject to these disadvantages. They are 
more valuable to the church than others after con- 
version, in proportion to the earliness of their con- 
version. 

Parental influence and other educational influ- 
ences, determine the character of children generally. 
When these influences are in favor of idolatry, chil- 
dren grow up to be idolaters ; when they are in favor 
of Islamism, children grow up to be Mahomedans; 
when they are in favor of the Papal religion, children 
grow up to be papists ; when they are in favor of the 
different denominations of protestants, children grow 
up to be of those different denominations. 

The conversion of parents, therefore, usually se- 
cures the children also. It ought uniformly to do 
this. 

The consecration of children to God by circum- 
cision, was in beautiful accordance with the doctrine 
of responsibility of parents for the piety of their 
children. God virtually said to the pious Jew, " It 
belongs to you to form, directly or indirectly, the 
character of your children. You can form their 
characters for heaven or hell. I require you to form 
their characters for heaven. I claim them at your 
hand, and put upon them the mark and seal of my 
servants on your responsibility. Do your duty to 
them, that when they come to years of discretion, 
they may know and serve me." He says the same 
to the pious Christian in the ordinance of infant bap- 
tism. 

If Christian parents, and the church within whose 
fold children are born, are responsible for the piety 
of their children, and if God holds them responsible 
for this result, how appropriate is it that they should 
be baptized on the ground of their parents faith! 



EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 155 

Their hope is in this. Their prospective piety and 
salvation depend upon this. Well, therefore, may 
they be baptized on the ground of this faith! 



CHAPTER XIV. 

TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHRIS- 
TIAN FATHERS. 

Sixth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 

§84. The early Christian fathers bear testimony 
in favor of infant baptism. 

Tertullian. 

1. The earliest explicit testimony of the Christian 
fathers, in respect to the subjects of baptism, is given 
by Tertullian. Tertullian was bom at Carthage, 
about 150, A. D., and died in 220, A. D. The time 
of his conversion is uncertain. He received a liberal 
education, and was well versed in Greek and Roman 
literature, and Roman law. Towards the latter part 
of his life, he left the orthodox church and joined 
the Montanists. The ground of his separation from 
the orthodox church, related chiefly to discipline in 
regard to which he was inclined to be excessively 
austere. 



156 EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 

The Montanists claimed superior perfection; were 
generally strict in the observance of external rites, 
and placed great dependence upon them. Montanu s, 
the founder of this sect, claimed to be the Comforter, 
and undertook to perfect the Christian system. 

In conformity with his extravagant views as a 
Montanist, Tertullian discountenances the baptism 
of infants, on the following grounds : 

1. That their sponsors may not incur danger; 

2. That they may first learn the design of baptism ; 

3. Because their innocent age does not require 
forgiveness of sins. 

With equal positiveness, he discountenances adult 
baptisms in the case of unmarried persons, and those 
who have lost their partners on account of the ex- 
posure of such to temptation. 

Tertullian does not state explicitely what the 
usages of the orthodox church in his time, respecting 
the baptism of infants were. But he gives his opin- 
ion as to what they ought to be, and assigns his rea- 
sons for that opinion. 

He puts the baptism of infants on a par with that 
of unmarried persons, and argues against both with 
equal positiveness, and on similar grounds. His 
argument against the baptism of infants, is a decisive 
evidence of the practice of infant baptism in his time. 

It is also an evidence that he had no good 
reason to find fault with this practice. For he may 
safely be presumed to have adduced against it the 
best reasons he had. It would have been much to his 
purpose to have said that infant baptism was not of 
apostolic origin, that it was an innovation upon apos- 
tolic usages, and unauthorised by the scriptures. — 
But he says none of these things. 



EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 157 

The prevalence of infant baptism may be inferred 
from the objections made to it by Tertullian, and its 
apostolic authority from the frivolous nature of the ob- 
jections which he alleges against it. Being a man of 
learning, he must have known whether the baptism 
of infants had been handed down from the times of 
the apostles or riot, and his neglect to object against 
this usage, the want of apostolic authority, proves 
that there was no ground for such an objection. 



Origen. 

§85. Origen was born at Alexandria 185, A. D., 
and early instructed by his father in the sciences and 
in the Christian religion. At the age of 18, he be- 
came principal of the catechetical school in Alexan- 
dria; and his lectures were attended by multitudes 
of both sexes. In 211, he went to Rome, where he 
gained many friends. He was early advanced to the 
office of presbyter, and preached the gospel with 
distinguished honor and success in different impor- 
tant places in Palestine and Arabia. He died at 
Tyre, in consequence of persecutions which he en- 
dured under the Emperor Decius in 254, A. D. — 
His writings were numerous and valuable. 

The following are among his testimonies concern- 
ing the subjects of baptism. 

Homily 8, on Leviticus c. 12. "According to the 
usage of the church baptism is given to infants when 
if there were nothing in infants which needed for- 
giveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be 
evidently superfluous." 

Homily on Luke 14 : " Infants are baptized for 
the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or at what 



158 



EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 



time have they sinned? or how is it possible that any 
cause for the laver should exist in respect to infants, 
except according to that sentiment which we have 
expressed a little before; that no one is free from 
defilement even if his life has been but of a single 
day upon earth. And because, by the sacrament of 
baptism, native defilement is taken away, therefore 
even infants are baptized." 

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 5. 
" For this cause it was that the church received a 
tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to 
infants." 

The above passages are taken from parts of Ori- 
gen's works, which have not been preserved in the 
original Greek. They are, however, preserved in 
ancient translations, which are entitled to the highest 
confidence. 

They teach explicitly two things; 

1. That baptism was generally applied to infants 
in the times of Origen on their parents' account; 

2. That this usage was believed to have been hand- 
ed down from the apostles. 

The extensive learning and travels of Origen, and 
his great abilities and opportunities of information 
render it morally impossible, that he should have 
been mistaken on this subject. 



Cyprian. 

5 86. Cyprian was bom about 200, A. D., at Car- 
thage, and was descended from a respectable family. 
He was converted to Christianity in 246. Soon af- 
ter this, he was made a Presbyter; and in 248, A. D., 
was made bishop of the church of Carthage. He 



EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 159 

was beheaded September 14, 258, A. D., for preach- 
ing the gospel in the gardens near Carthage, contra- 
ry to the decrees of the civil authority. 

In 253, A. D., Cyprian presided in a council com- 
posed of sixty six bishops. In a letter still extant^ 
he communicates to an absent bishop the decision of 
the council on a question respecting infant baptism, 
in the following words: 

" But as far as relates to the case of infants, who 
you said ought not to be presented to be baptized, 
within the second or third day after they are born, 
and that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be 
considered; so that you supposed that no one ought 
to be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day 
after he was born, it seemed far otherwise to all in 
our council. In this which you thought ought to be 
done, no one agreed, but we all rather judged that 
the mercy and favor of God ought to be denied to 
no human being. And, therefore, dearest brother, 
this was our opinion in council, that no person ought 
by us to be prohibited from baptism and from the 
grace of God, who is benignant and kind to all. — 
But when this ought to be observed towards all ; we 
supposed that it ought more especially to be observed 
towards infants and persons recently born." 

The above testimony is decisive in respect to the 
prevalence of infant baptism in those times ; and its 
supposed scriptural authority. 

587. Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose Chiysostom and 
Augustine, have given us equally explicit testimonies 
in favor of the prevalence of infant baptism in their 
times; and in some cases, have referred to it as cor- 
responding to the infant circumcision of the former 
dispensation. 



160 EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 

Augustine declares explicitly the universality of 
infant baptism in the Christian church, and asserts 
the apostolic authority of this usage. 

While the above and similar testimonies assure us 
of the prevalence of the baptism of infants, no evi- 
dence of any kind has come down to us of the ex- 
clusion of infants from this rite in any branch of the 
Christian church which did not discard all baptism. 
Some sects are mentioned by ancient writers who 
practiced no baptism at all, in this respect, like the 
Quakers of modern times. But those who baptized 
at all, baptized infants. At last this was generally 
the case, and no evidence whatever has come down 
to us to prove that it was not universally so. 

§ 88. The testimony of the early Christian fath- 
ers is entitled to full credit, as to the fact of the 
prevalence of infant baptism in their times. It is 
also of great weight in favor of the apostolic origin 
of infant baptism. For they had means of investi- 
gating this subject historically, which later ages do 
not possess, and can never attain. They had access 
to vast stores of information which have since per- 
ished. Hundreds of churches had existed in unbro- 
ken lines of succession from the times of the apos- 
tles, and the records of many of them, from their 
commencement, had doubtless been preserved. A 
reference to them was all that was necessary to as- 
certain what the apostolic usage was. Such refer- 
ence could easily be made, and doubtless was made 
by the very persons whose testimonies have been 
adduced and referred to. 

The general prevalence of infant baptism at the 
early period above referred to, cannot be satisfacto- 
rily accounted for on the supposition that it w r as not 



EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 161 

of apostolic origin. The exclusion of infants from 
baptism, if they were excluded, depended upon no 
provincialism, which, according to Jewish usage, 
taught that infants were not to be baptised; and ac- 
cording to classic usage taught that they were to be 
baptised. The only causes that can be assigned for 
the introduction of infant baptism after the days of 
the apostles and previous to the times of Tertullian 
and Origen, are the apparent fitness of baptism to be 
administered to infants, the supposed good to be at- 
tained by it, the analogy of baptism to circumcision, 
and other considerations of this kind. These con- 
siderations must all have been met by the apostles, 
had they discarded the baptism of infants, and over- 
come ; and in overcoming them, they must have laid 
a firm foundation for the exclusion of infants from 
baptism. But where was this foundation laid? Not 
in the New Testament. Not in any documents 
which continued till the times of Origen and Cypri- 
an. Where, then, did they lay it? I answer no- 
where. No such foundation was laid. If it had 
been laid, it would still be capable of being found* 
Some vestige of it at least would be discoverable. 



162 THE BLESSING OF GOD 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE BLESSING OF GOD ON INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

§ 89. When the blessing of God signally attends 
the observance of any religious institution, it is an 
evidence of the propriety of that institution, and of 
its agreement with the will of God. It is not to be 
supposed, that God will signally bless institutions 
which are not conformable to his will, or that he will 
make such institutions, channels of his mercy and 
grace. God's appointed institutions are, the chan- 
nels of his mercy. In them, his blessings flow. In 
this way, he honors his own appointments. By this 
means, he makes an obvious and important difference 
between them and the institutions of men. 

The sabbath, prayer, and public religious worship, 
may be referred to, in proof of the fact, that God 
distinguishes his own institutions by his blessing. 
God's blessing signally accompanies the observance 
of the sabbath, it signally accompanies prayer and 
public worship; so much so, that if all other evi- 
dence of the divine authority of these institutions, 
should be suddenly annihilated, this^ unaided and 
alone, would be sufficient for their establishment. 
The usefulness of the sabbath, the usefulness of 
prayer, the usefulness of public worship, would 
cause them forever to be observed, as sacred and in- 
dispensable duties, if all other evidences in their 
favor were lost. This usefulness, is the effect of 
God's blessing, and is a continually renewed testi- 
mony of his will in regard to moral actions. 



ON INFANT BAPTISM. 163 

The baptism of infants, with a recognition of them 
as lambs of the fold of Christ, has been marked with 
the most signal demonstrations of God's favor. It 
has been blessed , in a high degree, to parents, as a 
means of quickening them in the discharge of their 
parental duties, pertaining to the moral government 
and religious instruction of their children, and as a 
means of affording them consolation under the re- 
moval of their children by death. It has been bless- 
ed, in a high degree, to children, in early impressing 
their minds with a sense of the obligations impress- 
ed upon them by the baptismal seal and covenant, 
and in early leading them to the Savior. 

In the Episcopal church, where the baptism and 
church relations of infants are more respected, per- 
haps, than in any other of the Protestant churches, 
especially by the most evangelical portions of that 
church, the infant membership is the main source 
for the supply and multiplication of adult members. 
The numerous confirmations, which occur in the 
families of pious Episcopalians, are so many testimo- 
nies of the excellence of Episcopal principles and 
practice on this subject. They are so many divine 
testimonies, that infant church-membership and in- 
fant baptism, are in agreement with the will of God. 

But the Presbyterian church, though far behind 
the most spiritual portions of the Episcopal in a due 
appreciation of infant church-membership and infant 
baptism, has ample experience of the benefits result- 
ing from this feature of its system, as far as it is 
legitimate preserved and carried out, in the practice 
of its congregations and members. 



164 INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF THE BAP. 
TISM OF INFANTS. 

590. The conclusion, from the foregoing argu- 
ments, is clear and strong in favor of the baptism of 
infants. That conclusion is not merely probable. It is 
certain. The evidence adduced, is incompatible with 
the contrary hypothesis. But even if it was only 
probable, and probable in a high degree, that proba- 
bility, in the absence of any thing more decisive, 
would be a legitimate rule of action to the church 
of God. It would be the indispensable duty of the 
church to extend Christian baptism to its infants, 
even if it was only probable that Christ and the apos- 
tles did so. Where certain conclusions can be at- 
tained, we ought not to stop short of attaining them ; 
and are to blame if we do so. 

But where certainty cannot be attained, we must 
be governed by probabilities. Probabilities are, in 
such cases, as legitimate rules of moral action, as 
certainties in other cases; and we are, as imperative- 
ly, bound to be governed by them. 

The kind of evidence by which the scriptural 
authority of infant baptism is proved, is not what 
many have demanded, and is not what many have 
thought necessary. But it is such as God has seen 
fit to give, and ought, therefore, to be satisfactoiy. 
God's plans are, in many respects, different from 
what appears to us desirable. If he had taken coun- 
sel of us, he would have had to remodel his word 



INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 165 

altogether. But neither in the kingdoms of nature 
or of grace, has he taken our officious advise. In 
both departments of his agency, he has acted on 
principles which we can only imperfectly compre- 
hend, and produced anomalies which we cannot ac- 
count for. 

Many things enter into the divine plan which we 
would have excluded from it, and many things are 
left out of it which we would have comprehended 
in it. 

Some things are explained in the scriptures, with 
a greater fulness and particularity, than to us appears 
necessary, other things are proportionately too ob- 
scure. Here, God has said too much to suit us; 
there, too little. In the opinion of some, it was in- 
cumbent on God to make every thing to which his 
word appertains, so obvious, that reasoning and inves- 
tigation would not be necesary to a right understand- 
ing of it. 

The most superficial interpretations of the scrip- 
tures, are sure to be adopted by such, as the most 
probable ; and all the results of profound and pro- 
tracted reasonings, are discarded. 

This assumption of the simplicity and obviousness 
of divine truth, is the baseless fabric of imagination. 
It is true of a part of divine truth, but not of the 
whole. 

God has not so constructed his word, as to save 
men the necessity of the most profound and extend- 
ed investigations of which they are capable, in the 
interpretation of it. 

Why God has not made every important truth ob- 
vious, in the scriptures; why he has made it neces- 
sary to ascertain and teach them, in many cases, by 
means of protracted courses of reasoning and argu- 



166 INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 

ment, it is not necessary to explain. Such, however, 
is the fact. And the man who, from indolence or 
any cause, will not investigate; and he who, from 
mental imbecility, cannot; must both inevitably fail 
of reaching many profound and interesting, and 
many valuable results, which are fully reached by the 
unprejudiced and laborious interpreter. 

There is a demand for profound and extensive 
processes of reasoning, in respect to all the diversi- 
fied objects of human knowledge. The jurist, the 
legislator, the chemist, the mathematician, the, natu- 
ral philosopher and the historian, must attain many 
of their most important and most valuable results in 
this way. The interpreter of nature, in this respect, 
finds himself in circumstances precisely similar to 
those of the interpreter of the scriptures. 

By means of such demands, the human mind is 
called into exercise, and its higher powers essentially 
improved. Having invested man with vast capacities 
for the attainment of knowledge, by extended pro- 
cesses of reasoning, it is fit, that demands should be 
made, for the full exercise of these capacities; other- 
wise, they would be undeveloped and useless. 

The fact, that no record of the first institution of 
Christian baptism is preserved, and that the scriptu- 
ral instructions, respecting this ordinance, consist, 
entirely, in allusions and references to it, as already 
well understood, both in respect to its nature and its 
subjects, accounts for the want of direct evidence in 
regard to the proper subjects of this rite. These 
facts are undeniable, and deserve to be well consid- 
ered. 

Scriptural allusions and references to Christian 
baptism made, not for the direct purpose of explain- 
ing it, together with church traditions and uninspired 



INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 167 

testimony, are the only sources of information to us 
on matters which may have been settled, by the most 
explicit unrecorded instructions of our Lord and the 
apostles. 

The law respecting baptism as originally given, 
was doubtless clear and explicit. No questions seem 
to have agitated the church on this subject, during 
the apostolic age. 

What that law was, we are left to infer from sev- 
eral indirect evidences, because the law itself has 
not been made a matter of record Some infer, 
that infants were, in this law, included as legitimate 
subjects of baptism. Others infer, that baptism 
pertained only to adults. 

Both opinions are matters of inference, not of spe- 
cific scriptural testimony. Both are inferences, not 
from any scriptural record of the divine law relating 
to baptism, but from incidental references to baptism, 
in which it is mentioned, not for the purpose of be- 
ing explained, but for the purpose of being enforced 
and for other purposes 

Hundreds and thousands of members of the church 
testify, that their early conversion was owing, directly 
or indirectly, to their baptism received in infancy. 
Hundreds and thousands of its parents testify to the 
effectual influences of the Holy Spirit in turning 
their hearts to their children, to instruct them in the 
doctrines and duties of Christianity, by means of 
obligations which they acknowledged and in part 
assumed, when they consecrated their infant off- 
spring to God in baptism. 

What is the inference? Is not that which God 
blesses, of God? Is it not conformable to his will? 
Does not his blessing give it his sanction? Then, 
infant church-membership and infant baptism, are of 



168 INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 

God, for God's richest and most signal blessings are 
on them. 

Exclusive of the purpose of explanation, the ques- 
tion between the baptists, and other denominations, 
is not a question between a hypothesis sustained by 
direct evidence, and another hypothesis sustained by 
indirect evidence. It is a question between two 
hypotheses, both of which depend upon indirect 
evidence ; both of which are inferred from the scrip- 
tures ; neither of which is contained in them, other- 
wise than as a conclusion is contained in the premises 
from which it can be legitimately deduced. 

The conclusion in favor of the baptism of infants, 
is inferred from several different independent pre- 
mises. If these premises are correct, and the con- 
clusions legitimately drawn from them, the doctrine 
of infant baptism is fully sustained. If this is true 
in the case of any one of the foregoing arguments, 
infant baptism is fully sustained, even if all the other 
arguments are shown to be inconclusive. 

The want of direct evidence creates a necessity 
for more extended and discriminating investigations 
than would otherwise be necessary. It also occa- 
sions, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, a liability 
to error, which might not otherwise have existed 
But it does not render the attainment of certain con- 
clusions impracticable, neither does it render errone- 
ous opinions on the subject inevitable. 

In the absence of direct evidence, we resort to 
that which is indirect, of which we find a sufficiency 
for the full establishment of affusion and sprinkling 
as the mode, and of believing adults and their chil- 
dren as the subjects of Christian baptism. 



DUTIES OF THE CHURCH, ETC. 169 



CHAPTER XVn. 

DUTIES OF THE CHURCH TO INFANT 
MEMBERS. 

I. DUE RECOGNITION OF INFANT CHURCH-MEMBER- 
SHIP, 

$ 91, The doctrine of infant church-membership, 
with infant baptism as its seal, is a cardinal point in 
the Christian system. It affects, essentially the or- 
ganization of the Christian church. The churches 
which reject this doctrine, organize themselves on a 
plan entirely different from that which God has in- 
stituted. 

The adoption of infant baptism, without a full re- 
cognition of infants as being thereby introduced into 
the church and entitled to its care, is but little better 
than the entire rejection of it. It is a conformity to 
tne letter of the divine law on this subjett, but a 
violation of its spirit. 

The conclusion at which we have arrived, in favor 
of the baptism of infants, is not a matter of mere 
speculative interest; it is of the greatest practical 
importance. The design of God is, that children 
should participate equally with cheir parents in the 
blessings of church organization and discipline. He 
claims as his subjects all adult Christians, and ex- 
tends to them the benefits of his jurisdiction, and 
of the system of moral and religious discipline which 
he has instituted. He also claims equally the chil- 
dren of the church, and requires them to be trained 
up and instructed in all the doctrines and duties of 
12 



170 DUTIES OF THE CHUKCH 

Christianity. He requires them to be trained up not 
merely to know, but also to do his will, and to per- 
form the duties which he has enjoined as constituting 
his service. 

The responsibility of giving children this training, 
is devolved, in the first place, upon their parents, and 
in the second place, upon the church to which they 
belong. 

The church is as much bound to provide for the 
instruction and edification of its infant members as 
for those of adults. It ought to do this by its offi- 
cers as it performs other corporate duties. How 
sadly and how criminally this church care of children 
is neglected, in the different branches of the Presby- 
terian church, is well known ! Children are baptized, 
and then, so far from receiving the church attention 
due to them as members of that body, in most cases, 
their membership in the church is never afterwards 
acknowledged. If they see fit to take their places 
among the other members of their respective con- 
gregations when they come to be adults, they do it 
by profession not by confirmation. In this manner, 
their church connection is virtually nullified imme- 
diately after it is created. 

To baptize children and then deny them the privi- 
leges of church discipline, is, in some respects, more 
criminal than not to baptize them at all. By it, the 
very purpose and design of infant church-member- 
ship, and of infant baptism, is, in many cases, en- 
tirely and in others partially defeated. 

The conclusion in favor of infant baptism is in- 
separably connected with the doctrine of the church- 
membership of baptized children. If we baptize our 
children, and thus initiate them into the Christian 
church, we are bound to recognize them as church 



TO INFANT MEMBERS. 171 

members, and extend to them the benefits of church 
discipline. 

This cannot be done without early instructing bap- 
tized children in the principles and ordinances of 
Christianity, and confirming them, on their own pro- 
fessions, in the enjoyment of church relations and 
privileges. 

This is done by the Episcopal church, and, in doing 
it, that church acts consistently. Why is it not done 
by all pedo-baptist churches? Ought not confirmation 
to be extended as far as infant baptism extends? 
The inconsistency of practicing infant baptism, with 
no subsequent recognition of the church relations of 
baptized children on the part of the church, is too 
obvious to be denied. It has done much to prejudice 
the cause of infant baptism with unbelievers, as well 
as to defeat its ends. 

The most spiritual portions of the Episcopal church 
baptize their children, instruct and edify, and then 
confirm them. Why should we not do the same? 
The introduction of confirmation would not require 
any depression of our existing standards of qualifi- 
cation for church-membership. We might examine 
our candidates for confirmation on the state of their 
affections and dispositions, as well as on their faith 
and knowledge, and receive only such as should have 
entered on a course of evangelical obedience. 

We are not at liberty to be negligent in this mat- 
ter. Church order is of God's appointment, and 
must be maintained and carried out according to his 
design. If we will not maintain it, and carry it out, 
others will. God will intrust the cardinal interests 
of his kingdom with such, and with such only, as 
shall prove themselves worthy of this trust. If we 
decline to execute his plan, he will take his institu- 



172 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH 

tions ultimately from us and give them to others. 
Already has God frowned upon our remissness in re- 
spect to the lambs of his flock. Many of them have 
been lost to our denomination. Many have been lost 
to the church altogether, whom a reasonable fidelity 
would have saved. 

God will admit of no substitute. Sabbath schools 
have done much for children. They are good aux- 
ilaries; but they are not an adequate substitute for 
church discipline. God will never allow them to 
take the place of the church. 



II. CHURCH DISCIPLINE OF INFANT MEMBERS. 

592. 1. This devolves, in the first place, on the 
parents, who, in the Presbyterian church, stand as 
sole sponsors for their children, in assuming the ob- 
ligations of the baptismal covenant. It is the duty 
of parents to train up their children in the way of 
piety, both by religious instruction and government. 
This training ought to be commenced at the earliest 
period in which it is practicable, and ought to be 
prosecuted with the utmost earnestness till its objects 
are secured. 

2. If parents prove negligent and remiss, it is 
incumbent on the church to admonish them, and call 
them to due performance of their duty. If it does 
not succeed in this, it becomes its duty, as far as pos- 
sible, to supply the deficiency of parental instruction 
and government, by means of its officers and other 
members, but especially by its stated ministry. 

3. Children, having been duly instructed and 
governed, when they arrive at years of discretion, 
are entitled to be admitted, on a profession of their 



TO INFANT MEMBERS. 173 

faith, to the full enjoyment of all church privileges. 
This, in the Episcopal church, is distinguished from • 
the admission of unbaptized persons, by the title of 
confirmation. As some distinction ought evidently 
to be made between it and the admission of unbap- 
tized persons; and as confirmation answers the pur- 
pose of making such a distinction, it would be well 
to introduce it generally wherever infant member- 
ship is recognized. The confirmation of infant 
church-members ought to take place at as early a 
period as the children can be duly prepared for it. 
Some may he confirmed at twelve years of age; 
others at 15, and others at later periods. It ought 
to be called confirmation in the church, not admis- 
sion to it. By calling it confirmation, we recognize 
the subjects of it as already church-members; by 
calling it admission to the church, we virtually deny 
the previous membership of those so admitted, and 
discard the doctrine in conformity with which that 
membership was constituted. 

4. If from neglect on thetpart of the parents or of 
the church, or from any other cause, children on at- 
taining years of full discretion, refuse to be confirm- 
ed, and to adopt Christianity as a rule of life, they 
should be cut off from the church by the same au- 
thority by which other unworthy members are re- 
moved. This may be done with more or less for- 
mality as may seem best. It ought, however, to be 
done by authority, and in an orderly manner, so as 
to be understood both by the church from whose fel- 
lowship such persons are separated, and by the per- 
sons themselves. 

These four particulars embrace the essential prin- 
ciples of the discipline of children in the church of 
Christ. They are all legitimate deductions from the 



174 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH 

doctrine of infant church-membership. If infants 
are admitted to the church by baptism, they become 
therefore, church-members, subject to church disci- 
pline ; and cannot lose their standing in the church, 
unless deprived of it by the due exercise of church 
authority. 



III. REFORMATION DEMANDED IN RESPECT TO CHURCH 
DISCIPLINE OF INFANT MEMBERS. 

593. It was predicted by Malachi, that before the 
advent of the Messiah, Elijah, the prophet, should be 
sent to turn the heart of the fathers to their children, 
and the heart of the children to their fathers. This 
office was performed by John the Baptist. Matt. 11 : 
14. Is not a similar mission now necessary to se- 
cure to the children of the Presbyterian church in 
its different branches, that attention, and those privi- 
leges to which they are entitled? 

Many considerations conspire to call our attention 
to the church relations of children and to the disci- 
pline which is due to them as church members. — 
Our responsibility to God faithfully to carry out 
his plan in regard to children; our responsibility 
to our children to do the most we can for their 
early conversion, and for their general conversion; 
our responsibility to the church of which we are 
members, to make its greatest perfection and en- 
largement are of this description. There is a part of 
the gospel camp that we have not sufficiently fortifi- 
ed. God has made provisions for the salvation of 
otfr children, but we have not fully availed ourselves 
of those gracious and abundant provisions. Let us 
awake to our duty. Let us arise and build up our 



TO INFANT MEMBERS. 175 

church; one of the noblest in other respects that can 
be found; but in this respect, weak and negligent. 
Several other denominations are before us in atten- 
tion to their children, and in a recognition of their 
title to church privileges. The Episcopalians are be- 
fore us. The more spiritual branches of that church 
are far before us in this respect. Even the Roman 
Catholics exercise a wisdom and fidelity in respect 
to their children which ought to clothe us with 
shame and humiliation. Their children are brought 
up in the church and for the church. We claiming 
to be wiser and purer than they, and discarding 
many of their traditionary errors, have hitherto ne- 
glected to profit by their examples of wisdom and 
fidelity in a matter which pertains to the fundamental 
principles of church order and prosperity. There 
must be a reformation among us in respect to that 
part of our organization and usages which relates to 
children. Weakened, as we are, by our deficiency 
in this respect, we can never secure to our religion 
its proper ascendency among men. God will be 
compelled to cast us aside, and commit his work to 
other orders, or we shall be compelled to carry into 
effect, and carry ouf that part of the Divine plan 
which relates to infant church-members, in conformi- 
ty with the letter and spirit of the New Testament. 



176 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS RELATING TO BAPTISM. 

I. CHRISTIAN NAMES. 

{94. Giving children names in baptism, has been 
handed down by tradition from ancient times. It 
probably had its origin* simultaneously with Christian 
baptism itself. Such names are called Christian 
names; because they are given at the time of the 
administration of baptism, and designed to distin- 
guish the subjects as consecrated to the worship and 
service of God. 

None but a baptized child, has, properly speaking, 
a Christian name. Others have names which desig- 
nate them as individuals; but the names of those 
who are baptized in infancy, designate them not as 
individuals only, but as Christians, as individuals con- 
secrated to the worship and service of Christ. 

The Christian names of persons baptized in infan- 
cy, are perpetual mementos of their consecration to 
God. 

Paul bore the name of Saul till his baptism. His 
Christian name was Paul. It does not appear, how- 
ever, that a change of name was considered neces- 
sary in cases of adult baptism. It was probably at 
the option of the subject. 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 177 



II. POSITION PROPER FOR RECEIVING BAPTISM. 

{95. In the case of adults, baptism may be re- 
ceived by the subject either standing or kneeling. — - 
Kneeling, however, is the most suitable posture for 
receiving it; because it is the most humble and re- 
spectful posture. Examples of kneeling in religious 
worship, occur both in the Old and New Testaments. 
Daniel knelt in his customary family devotions. — 
Dan. 6 : 10. Paul knelt and prayed with his Ephe- 
sian brethren on the ocpasion of his celebrated vale- 
dictory address, recorded Acts 20: 38. The recep- 
tion of baptism by an adult, is the most solemn act 
of his life. If we ever ought to kneel, we ought to 
do it on that occasion. 

Infants are most appropriately baptized by being 
taken in the arms of the officiating minister. This 
is in conformity to the example of Christ, who took 
little children in his arms and blessed them. 



III. TIMES AND PLACES PROPER FOR ADMINISTERING 
BAPTISM. 

{ 96. Infant baptisms ought evidently to be ad- 
ministered at an early period. In the case of cir- 
cumcision, the eighth day was fixed upon as the ear- 
liest period practicable for the administration of that 
rite. Reasoning from analogy, we may safely con- 
clude that infant baptism ought to be administered 
at the earliest period practicable. We are not limit- 
ed to the eighth day, but we are restricted to the 
earliest convenient season. The propriety of having 
infant baptisms administered at the earliest conveni- 



178 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 

ent season is too obvious to require comment or ar- 
gument. Those who defer having their children 
baptized from one convenient season to another,* and 
thus suffer months and even years to pass away in 
the neglect of their duty are guilty of culpable re- 
missness. 

If it is God's will that infant baptism should be 
observed at all, it must be his will that it should be 
observed promptly. Remissness and unnecessary 
delays, imply a low estimate of this duty; and an im- 
perfect apprehension of the binding force of God's 
laws. A due sense of the binding force of God's 
laws, will not allow us to be remiss in respect to any 
duty which he has enjoined. 

■ J The proper place for the administration of baptisms 
both in the case of infants and adults, is the church 
of God. -If we have no churches, our usual places 
of holding religious meetings become churches, so 
far as the essential purposes of church edifices are 
concerned. 

Baptisms ought to be administered in the presence 
of church congregations, and not in private, except 
in extraordinary cases ; because the entire congrega- 
tion has an interest in it. The baptized child is 
admitted as a church-member, and the church is laid 
under obligations to it as such. The service ought 
to be performed in the presence of the church, that 
it may assume those obligations voluntarily and un- 
derstandingly. 



IV. AMOUNT OF WATER TO BE USED IN BAPTISM. 

5 97. Some use water in baptism so sparingly, as 
hardly to represent either a washing or sprinkling. 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 179 

A secular washing requires the free use of water. 
Sprinkling is an emblem probably derived from the 
falling of rain, and represents the Spirit of God as 
poured out like the rain upon the baptized subject. 
It represents not only the pouring out of the Spirit, 
but the communication of those gifts and graces 
which the Spirit confers, as if they descended upon 
us from on high. As the rain washes the objects 
which it falls upon, and cleanses them from defile- 
ment, so baptism represents the Spirit of God as dis- 
tilling upon us from on high, to such an extent as to 
effect our cleansing from all sin, and entire removal 
of our guilt. This may be signified by the use of 
very little water; but it is much more strikingly 
represented by using water with considerable free- 
dom and in considerable abundance. 

Some use a single affusion or sprinkling, and some 
repeat these applications of water three times. These 
seem to be sufficient reasons for repeating them : 

1. We are baptized to the three persons of the 
Trinity. 

2. The verb baptize is a frequentative verb, and, 
as such, signifies not a single, but a repeated applica- 
tion of water. 



V. BAPTISMAL FORMULA. 

§98. The formula for administering baptism, 
taken from Matt. 28: 19, is as follows: 

M I baptize thee to the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

To ought to be used in this formula instead of in y 
for reasons already explained. 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 

In the Episcopal service, the parents and sponsors 
promise, in behalf of the infant subject which they 
present for baptism, three things; repentance, faith, 
and obedience. They also promise to renounce 
Satan according to a formula referred to by Tertul- 
lian, as made use of in his day. This is done in 
answer to questions proposed by the officiating minis- 
ter, and is sustained by an appeal to 1 Peter 3: 21, 
where the answer of a good conscience implies that 
candidates for baptism were questioned respecting 
their faith, and required to return satisfactory an- 
swers. 

In the case of adults, a profession of faith is gen- 
erally insisted on, as an essential qualification for 
baptism. In the case of infants, the same thing is 
required of the sponsors in behalf of infant subjects, 
by the Episcopal and some other churches; but by 
the Presbyterian church it is omitted. 



VI. HISTORICAL NOTICES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
SINCE THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES. 

{ 99. In the third century, the original modes of 
baptism had been generally superseded by immer- 
sion. No account is transmitted to us of the manner 
and grounds of this change. It is easily accounted 
for, however, by the fact, that the great body of Chris- 
tians who used the Greek language, the language 
in which the New Testament was written, under- 
stood it as used by the classic writers, and not as used 
by the Jews; and that, interpreted according to clas- 
sic usage, baptize meant to immerse or plunge in 
water. 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 

Besides, it was the disposition of the people in 
those times, as it is more or less in all times, to make 
additions to the simple forms and modes which God 
has established. The simplicity of God's modes is 
their highest beauty and excellence. But the great 
mass of human minds do not think far enough to 
perceive this. They therefore prefer something 
greater in amount or more complex than what God 
requires. The burden of the Mosaic ceremonies 
appears to us to have been great; but it was not so 
great that the Scribes and Pharisees did not think 
best to make it much greater by their traditions. 

So the early Christians were no sooner left to 
themselves by the removal of the Apostles, than they 
began to make additions to the simple rites of Chris- 
tianity. 

Contemporaneous with immersion, we find anoint- 
ing with oil, exorcism of evil spirits, and the Christian 
uniform made use of on the occasion of receiving 
baptism. No one can tell the origin of these rites. 
They came in silently during the second century. 
The first that we know of them is that they were in 
use, and apparently in general use. But they were 
not of apostolic or divine origin. The New Testa- 
ment knows nothing of them, and gives them no 
countenance. Neither does it know any thing of 
immersion as a mode of baptism. 

Immersion, when once established, continued to 
prevail, generally, for several hundred years, when af- 
fusion and sprinkling were re-established in the 
Roman Catholic church. The Greek church has 
continued to adhere to immersion till the present 
time. The leading Protestant sects withdrew from the 
Papal church, and brought off sprinkling and affusion 
with them as customary modes of baptism. 



182 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC, 

Infant baptism was generally practiced in all the 
ancient branches of the Christian church. Peter de 
Bmgs founded a small sect in Languedoc and Pro- 
vence, in 1110, who denied the propriety of infant 
baptism. But this sect never became numerous, and 
its peculiarity in respect to baptism was not widely 
disseminated. 

Immediately after the commencement of the Re- 
formation by Luther, the Anabaptists arose in Ger- 
many, who held to immersion as the only mode, and 
adult persons as the only proper subjects of baptism. 
They were organized under Munster, Stubner, and 
others, as a distinct faction, in 1521. They were 
highly fanatical; discarding civil government, dis- 
tinctions of rank, and the institution of private pro- 
perty, for which they proposed, after the plan of some 
more recent innovaters, a common stock. 

After having contributed more or less to fan the 
unparalleled excitement of those times, and after 
having come on several occasions in conflict with the 
civil authorities of the countries which they wished 
to reform, they gradually declined and became ex- 
tinct. Out of their ashes, however, arose, Phoenix 
like, the modern baptists. 

These abandoned the fanaticism of the Anabap- 
tists, and contended simply for immersion and adult 
baptism, to the exclusion of infants. 

The first particular Baptist church of the charac- 
ter of the modern Close Communion Baptists, was 
organized in London, in 1633. In 1650 these 
churches began to form associations and to hold 
epistolary correspondence with each other, in differ- 
ent countries. In 1689, they held a general assem- 
bly, in which one hundred congregations were repre- 
sented. 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 183 

The first Baptist church in Scotland was formed 
in 1765. The leading peculiarity of the Scotch Bap- 
tists was a plurality of pastors in each church. This, 
however, has been generally given up. 

The first Baptist church in America was formed 
by Roger Williams, at Providence, Rhode Island, in 
1639. 

At present, the Baptist denomination is numerous 
and respectable in this country and in Great Britain, 
and prevails to a limited extent in some other coun- 
tries. 

Besides the leading Baptist denomination, there 
are several minor sects, who concur with them in 
respect to baptism, while they deviate more or less 
from them, and from the other orthodox churches, in 
other respects. The most important of these are the 
Campbellites, who claim the title of Disciples. 

Sprinkling and affusion, and infant baptism, prevail 
throughout the Presbyterian and Congregational 
churches, the church of England, the Episcopal 
church of the United States, the Lutheran church, 
the Reformed churches of Germany and other parts 
of Europe, the Methodists, both regular and reformed, 
and the Roman Catholic church. Infant baptism 
prevails in Greek churches, and in the other Eastern 
churches. 

VII. PRESENT ATTITUDE OF THE BAPTISTS. 

5 100. The Baptists have assumed an attitude of 
confidence and determination in regard to their pecu- 
liar views, which renders it highly necessary for 
those who properly understand the subject, to exert 
themselves for the diffusion of scriptural principles 
on this subject. Their missionaries are translating 



184 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC 



the Bible into different modem languages, and pro- 
mulgating their views, by means of these translations, 
in different quarters of the globe. 

They have assumed it as an unquestionable fact, 
that the nations of the earth must now look to them, 
and to them alone, for faithful translations of the 
.word of God. Their Foreign and American Bible 
Society, declares the versions of other denominations 
to be essentially defective, and purposely to keep out 
of sight the real meaning of words. It charges the 
American Bible Society and the British and Foreign 
Bible Society, with having virtually combined to ob- 
scure at least a part of divine revelation; and circu- 
late versions of the Bible which are unfaithful, so 
far as the subject of baptism is concerned. 

They also hold, (Baptists,) that those who are bap- 
tized by sprinkling or affusion are unbaptized, and 
not to be recognized as church-members; and ex- 
clude all such from the Lord's table. ' They thus 
conspire, both against the truth on this subject, and 
against the unity and prosperity of the church of 
Christ. 

We are not at liberty to suffer men to imbibe these 
errors, or to remain in them, without using every 
practicable means of their preservation and recovery. 

The immersionist errors, are the basis of one of 
the greatest and most injurious schims in the church, 
that has ever occured. This schism ought to be 
healed. It can be healed. The subject of baptism 
is difficult. Men cannot master it in a moment. 
But it is level to the capacity of common minds, 
provided the evidence is duly arranged and exhibited. 

We are not at liberty to say, that baptism is only 
of minor importance, and that if men are only con- 
verted, it makes little difference what opinions they 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 185 

embrace on this subject. Those errors which create 
an extensive schism in the church of Christ, are pro- 
ductive of more evil than language can express. 

Viewed in the mildest light possible, the Baptists 
are schismatics. They divide the church of Christ. 
They repel their more correct brethren from the 
Lord's table, as unbaptized. They claim not to be 
a branch of the church of Christ, but to be Christ's 
only church. 

During the last fifty years, the Baptist cause has 
gained a vast amount of strength. It is strong now, 
and becomes increasingly so, by the supineness and 
apathy of those to whom a knowledge of the scrip- 
tural system, in respect to baptism, is committed, not 
only that they might enjoy the same, but that they 
should impart it to others. 



CAUSES OF THE SUCCESSFUL PROPAGATION OF BAPTIST 

ERRORS. 

^lOl. There are several reasons for the little 
success which has hitherto attended the endeavors of 
the church to maintain and diffuse, more generally, 
the scriptural doctrines respecting baptism. The 
principal of these are the following. 

1. Apathy and indifference to the subject. 

Multitudes regard it as of almost no consequence. 
They do not even teach what they know of it to 
their baptized children, still less to their neighbors. 
When this is the case, is it strange that their children 
are easily misled ; and that their uninstructed neigh- 
bors, should be carried away with the confident asser- 
13 



186 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 

tions and plausible reasonings of the Baptists? This 
is by no means strange. It is what ought to be ex- 
pected. It is what ought to take place. Supineness 
and apathy ought to suffer defeat and humiliation, 
even in a good cause. 

2. Making undue concessions. 

Too much, a great deal too much, has been con- 
ceded to the Baptists, and they have availed them- 
selves, largely, of these inordinate concessions. 
Their true position is that of schismatics, dividing 
the church and family of Christ. This, however, is 
generally kept out of view, in the opposition which 
is made to their other errors. Let us embrace the 
truth. Then let us make no concessions subversive 
of it. 

Some of the inordinate concessions, made by per- 
sons of other orders, to the Baptists, are the follow- 
ing: 

1. That immersion is, probably, the scriptural 
mode of baptism, but that other modes will answer 
the same purpose. 

If immersion is, probably, the scriptural mode of 
baptism, let us adhere to it. Let us not be wise 
above what is written, or suppose that we can im- 
prove upon the methods adopted by divine wisdom. 

2. That immersion, though not the scriptural mode 

of Baptism , is nearly as good as that, which 

is scriptural. 

The unity of the church is essential to its honor, 
peace and efficiency. In order to unity, there must 
be agreement, as far as practicable, both in modes of 
worship, and in doctrinal opinions. There must, 



MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 187 

especially, be agreement in all those modes which 
are deemed fundamental, whether they are so or not. 
Immersion is deemed fundamental by the Baptists. 
Hence, they regard and treat all the rest of Christen- 
dom as unbaptized, and as apostates from this essen- 
tial pait of Christianity. In every point of view, 
therefore, the Baptist errors are injurious. They are 
a departure from truth, and the basis of an extensive 
schism in the church. 

3. That there is no great harm in neglecting Infant 
Baptism. 

If infant baptism is not of Divine authority, it 
ought not to be persisted in. If it is of Divine au- 
thority, it ought by no means to be neglected or 
lightly esteemed. The feature of the Divine econ- 
omy, however, on which infant baptism is engrafted, 
is one of the most interesting which it possesses. — 
Infant baptism is a seal of grace bestowed on the 
children of the saints through the use of appropriate 
means by their parents and guardians. This was a 
principle of the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. 
It is equally a principle of the Christian dispensation. 
Grace is bestowed on the children of the saints. — 
From them the ranks of the church are usually filled. 
They constitute a large proportion of those who are 
converted early in life to the Saviour. The children 
of the church are its hope for the future existence 
and prosperity of the Christian religion among men. 
They are its hope for the conversion of the entire 
world. 

But in order to secure the grace of God for them, 
we must devote them to him in baptism. If we ne- 
glect this, we forfeit the blessing. If we neglect it 



188 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 

wilfully, the forfeiture will be likely to be taken at 
our hands, and the grace which is the source of un~ 
numbered benefits in this world, and which brings 
eternal life in its train, will be likely to be withheld 
forever. The ordinances of religion are not to be 
trifled with. They are appointed as so many chan- 
nels for the conveyance of spiritual blessings. By 
attending upon them, we put ourselves, and in the 
case of infant baptism, put our children in the way 
of receiving inestimable benefits not to be obtained 
by any other means. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnoiogies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOI 
111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



